IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v112y2022ics0306919222001427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service

Author

Listed:
  • Ding, Ye
  • Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M.
  • Zeng, Yinchu
  • Yang, Wei
  • Arielle Snell, Heather

Abstract

With the rapid development of online food delivery (OFD) service around the world, food safety issues are emerging. Traditional information-provision methods cannot alleviate the information asymmetry between consumers and restaurants in OFD service; therefore, a new approach must be found to increase consumers’ information and gain their trust. Live Kitchen, a live video feed in restaurant kitchens, offers a new idea for providing food safety information through network technology. Using data from 683 respondents in Beijing and Shanghai in China, we examine consumers’ valuation of Live Kitchen for OFD service by utilizing choice experiments and random parameter logit models with error components in WTP space. The results suggest that (i) consumers are willing to pay for Live Kitchen, more than traditional information-provision methods of license publicity and food safety supervision publicity, (ii) Live Kitchen can convey food safety information on OFD service to consumers, allowing them to draw a positive inference about the food safety of OFD service, and (iii) the application cost of Live Kitchen is much lower than the implied welfare gain.

Suggested Citation

  • Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0306919222001427
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102373
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919222001427
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102373?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liu, Ruifeng & Gao, Zhifeng & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Snell, Heather Arielle & Ma, Hengyun, 2019. "Consumers’ valuation for food traceability in China: Does trust matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    2. Loomis, John & Bell, Paul & Cooney, Helen & Asmus, Cheryl, 2009. "A Comparison of Actual and Hypothetical Willingness to Pay of Parents and Non-Parents for Protecting Infant Health: The Case of Nitrates in Drinking Water," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 697-712, December.
    3. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    4. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    5. Kapoor, Anuj Pal & Vij, Madhu, 2018. "Technology at the dinner table: Ordering food online through mobile apps," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 342-351.
    6. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    7. Jill Windle & John Rolfe, 2011. "Comparing Responses from Internet and Paper-Based Collection Methods in more Complex Stated Preference Environmental Valuation Surveys," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 83-97, March.
    8. Karen E. Lewis & Carola Grebitus & Gregory Colson & Wuyang Hu, 2017. "German and British Consumer Willingness to Pay for Beef Labeled with Food Safety Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 451-470, June.
    9. Yeo, Vincent Cheow Sern & Goh, See-Kwong & Rezaei, Sajad, 2017. "Consumer experiences, attitude and behavioral intention toward online food delivery (OFD) services," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 150-162.
    10. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.
    11. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    12. Balogh, Péter & Békési, Dániel & Gorton, Matthew & Popp, József & Lengyel, Péter, 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    13. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    14. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    15. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    16. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    17. Suk Won Lee & Hye Jin Sung & Hyeon Mo Jeon, 2019. "Determinants of Continuous Intention on Food Delivery Apps: Extending UTAUT2 with Information Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, June.
    18. 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.
    19. Neill, Clinton L. & Holcomb, Rodney B., 2019. "Does a food safety label matter? Consumer heterogeneity and fresh produce risk perceptions under the Food Safety Modernization Act," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 7-14.
    20. Zhou, Jiehong & Liu, Qing & Mao, Rui & Yu, Xiaohua, 2017. "Habit spillovers or induced awareness: Willingness to pay for eco-labels of rice in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 62-73.
    21. Roh, Minjung & Park, Kiwan, 2019. "Adoption of O2O food delivery services in South Korea: The moderating role of moral obligation in meal preparation," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 262-273.
    22. Nielsen, Jytte Seested, 2011. "Use of the Internet for willingness-to-pay surveys: A comparison of face-to-face and web-based interviews," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 119-129, January.
    23. David A. Hensher, 2006. "How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 861-878.
    24. Day, Brett & Bateman, Ian J. & Carson, Richard T. & Dupont, Diane & Louviere, Jordan J. & Morimoto, Sanae & Scarpa, Riccardo & Wang, Paul, 2012. "Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 73-91.
    25. Glynn T. Tonsor, 2011. "Consumer inferences of food safety and quality," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 213-235, June.
    26. Tao Ye & Ming Wang & Wuyang Hu & Yangbin Liu & Peijun Shi, 2017. "High liabilities or heavy subsidies," China Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 9(4), pages 588-606, November.
    27. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    28. Kenneth E. Train, 1998. "Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences over People," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 74(2), pages 230-239.
    29. Anders Karlstrom, 2003. "A Simple Method of Incorporating Income Effects into Logit and Nested-Logit Models: Theory and Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 248-253.
    30. 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.
    31. Daniel N. Gilmour & Claudia Bazzani & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Heather A. Snell, 2019. "Do consumers value hydroponics? Implications for organic certification," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(6), pages 707-721, November.
    32. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    33. Riccarda Moser & Roberta Raffaelli & Sandra Notaro, 2014. "Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents' own money," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(1), pages 25-46, February.
    34. Wolfe, Elijah & Popp, Michael & Bazzani, Claudia & Nayga Jr, Rudolfo & Danforth, Diana & Popp, Jennie & Chen, Pengyin & Seo, Han-Seok, 2016. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Genetically Engineered Edamame," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 230016, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    3. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Caputo, Vincenzina & Scarpa, Riccardo & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Are preferences for food quality attributes really normally distributed? An analysis using flexible mixing distributions," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 10-27.
    5. De Salvo, Maria & Scarpa, Riccardo & Capitello, Roberta & Begalli, Diego, 2020. "Multi-country stated preferences choice analysis for fresh tomatoes," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3), December.
    6. Lin Bai & Zhanguo Zhu & Tong Zhang, 2021. "How to Improve Food Quality in the Domestic Market: The Role of “Same Line Same Standard Same Quality”—Evidence from a Consumer Choice Experiment in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-16, May.
    7. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    10. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    11. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    12. Wen Lin & David L Ortega & Vincenzina Caputo, 2023. "Experimental quantity, mental budgeting and food choice: a discrete choice experiment application," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(2), pages 457-496.
    13. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    14. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    16. Dissanayake,Sahan T. M. & Beyene,Abebe Damte & Bluffstone,Randall & Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Martinsson,Peter & Mekonnen,Alemu & Toman,Michael A. & Vieider,Ferdinand M., 2015. "Preferences for REDD+ contract attributes in low-income countries : a choice experiment in Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7296, The World Bank.
    17. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    18. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    20. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0306919222001427. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.