IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v37y2012i3p335-342.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer valuation of health attributes for soy-based food: A choice modeling approach

Author

Listed:
  • Chang, Jae Bong
  • Moon, Wanki
  • Balasubramanian, Siva K.

Abstract

Given that soy foods possess health-promoting attributes that offer the promise of reducing heart-related chronic diseases, this article employs choice experiments to estimate marginal willingness to pay (WTP) for soy attributes including taste, contents of soy protein, and health claim. Random parameter logit (RPL) models were estimated in consideration of potential heterogeneity across individuals in their preferences for soy food. Standard deviation parameters in the RPL models are highly significant, indicating that individuals have widely varying preferences for soy-based food products. Results suggest that, while taste is the dominating attribute that drives consumers’ WTP for soy food products, consumers do respond to the information provided in the health claim. Yet, consumers do not seem to be recognizing soy protein as the link to health benefits of soy foods.

Suggested Citation

  • Chang, Jae Bong & Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K., 2012. "Consumer valuation of health attributes for soy-based food: A choice modeling approach," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 335-342.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:37:y:2012:i:3:p:335-342
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.03.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919212000280
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.03.001?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. 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.
    2. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    3. Maria L. Loureiro & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2006. "Do consumers value nutritional labels?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(2), pages 249-268, June.
    4. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    5. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    6. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    7. Ahmadi-Esfahani, Fredoun Z. & Stanmore, Roland G., 1997. "Export demand for attributes of Australian wheat in Asia and the Middle East," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 145-154, April.
    8. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    10. Wang, Zhigang & Mao, Yanna & Gale, Fred, 2008. "Chinese consumer demand for food safety attributes in milk products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 27-36, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeff & Louviere, Jordan, 2000. "Choice modelling and its potential application to tropical rainforest preservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 289-302, November.
    13. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton, 2005. "Preference heterogeneity and GM food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(2), pages 269-288, June.
    14. Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K. & Rimal, Arbindra, 2005. "Perceived Health Benefits and Soy Consumption Behavior: Two-Stage Decision Model Approach," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 30(2), pages 1-18, August.
    15. Wansink, Brian & Park, Sea Bum & Sonka, Steven T. & Morganosky, Michelle A., 2000. "How Soy Labeling Influences Preference And Taste," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 3(01), pages 1-10.
    16. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Liljenstolpe, Carolina, 2003. "Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 95-103, November.
    17. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    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. 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.
    2. Pallante, Giacomo & Drucker, Adam G. & Sthapit, Sajal, 2016. "Assessing the potential for niche market development to contribute to farmers' livelihoods and agrobiodiversity conservation: Insights from the finger millet case study in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 92-105.
    3. Domenico Carlucci & Biagia De Devitiis & Gianluca Nardone & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo, 2017. "Certification Labels Versus Convenience Formats: What Drives the Market in Aquaculture Products?," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 295-310.
    4. Giacomo Pallante & Adam Drucker, 2014. "Niche Markets for Agrobiodiversity Conservation: Preference and Scale Heterogeneity Effects on Nepalese Consumers’ WTP for Finger Millet Products," SEEDS Working Papers 1414, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised May 2014.
    5. Abebe, Gumataw K. & Bijman, Jos & Kemp, Ron & Omta, Onno & Tsegaye, Admasu, 2013. "Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 14-24.
    6. Francesca Colantuoni & Gianni Cicia & Teresa Del Giudice & Daniel Lass & Francesco Caracciolo & Pasquale Lombardi, 2016. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Domestic Fresh Produce: Evidence from German and Italian Early Potato Markets," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 512-530, November.
    7. Carlucci, Domenico & Dedevitiis, Biagia & Nardone, Gianluca & Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano, 2016. "Certification Labels Vs Convenience Formats: What drives the market in aquaculture products?," MPRA Paper 75448, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Azucena Gracia & Ana María Sánchez & Francesc Jurado & Cristina Mallor, 2020. "Making Use of Sustainable Local Plant Genetic Resources: Would Consumers Support the Recovery of a Traditional Purple Carrot?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-17, August.
    9. Oliver Meixner & Felix Katt, 2020. "Assessing the Impact of COVID-19 on Consumer Food Safety Perceptions—A Choice-Based Willingness to Pay Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-18, September.

    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. Chang, Jae Bong & Moon, Wanki & Balasubramanian, Siva K., 2009. "Health Concerns and Consumer Preferences for Soy Foods: Choice Modeling Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49591, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    3. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    4. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. repec:ehu:biltok:5571 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376.
    9. 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.
    10. Sang Hyeon Lee & Doo Bong Han & Vincenzina Caputo & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr., 2015. "Consumers’ Valuation for a Reduced Salt Product: A Nonhypothetical Choice Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 563-582, December.
    11. Jayson Lusk & Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster, 2007. "Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 499-521, April.
    12. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    13. Jin, Jianjun & Wang, Zhishi & Ran, Shenghong, 2006. "Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 430-441, May.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    17. Rai, Rajesh Kumar & Scarborough, Helen, 2012. "Estimating the public benefits of mitigating damages caused by invasive plant species in a subsistence economy," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124421, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. 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.
    19. Craig E. Landry & Paul Hindsley & Okmyung Bin & Jamie B. Kruse & John C. Whitehead & Ken Wilson, 2011. "Weathering the Storm: Measuring Household Willingness‐to‐Pay for Risk‐Reduction in Post‐Katrina New Orleans," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 77(4), pages 991-1013, April.
    20. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh & Krupnick, Alan & Lampi, Elina & Löfgren, Åsa & Qin, Ping & Sterner, Thomas, 2013. "A fair share: Burden-sharing preferences in the United States and China," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-17.

    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:37:y:2012:i:3:p:335-342. 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.