IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v140y2015icp1-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating consumer preferences for healthy eating from Community Kitchens in low-income urban areas: A discrete choice experiment of Comedores Populares in Peru

Author

Listed:
  • Buttorff, Christine
  • Trujillo, Antonio J.
  • Diez-Canseco, Francisco
  • Bernabe-Ortiz, Antonio
  • Miranda, J. Jaime

Abstract

Many low-income individuals from around the world rely on local food vendors for daily sustenance. These small vendors quickly provide convenient, low-priced, tasty foods, however, they may be low in nutritional value. These vendors serve as an opportunity to use established delivery channels to explore the introduction of healthier products, e.g. fresh salad and fruits, to low-income populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Buttorff, Christine & Trujillo, Antonio J. & Diez-Canseco, Francisco & Bernabe-Ortiz, Antonio & Miranda, J. Jaime, 2015. "Evaluating consumer preferences for healthy eating from Community Kitchens in low-income urban areas: A discrete choice experiment of Comedores Populares in Peru," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-8.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:140:y:2015:i:c:p:1-8
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.06.033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953615300101
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.06.033?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. Yoo, Hong Il & Doiron, Denise, 2013. "The use of alternative preference elicitation methods in complex discrete choice experiments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1166-1179.
    2. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    3. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    4. Grisolía, José M. & Longo, Alberto & Boeri, Marco & Hutchinson, George & Kee, Frank, 2013. "Trading off dietary choices, physical exercise and cardiovascular disease risks," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 130-138.
    5. Denzil G. Fiebig & Stephanie Knox & Rosalie Viney & Marion Haas & Deborah J. Street, 2011. "Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(S1), pages 35-52, September.
    6. Potoglou, Dimitris & Burge, Peter & Flynn, Terry & Netten, Ann & Malley, Juliette & Forder, Julien & Brazier, John E., 2011. "Best-worst scaling vs. discrete choice experiments: An empirical comparison using social care data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(10), pages 1717-1727, May.
    7. 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.
    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. Anne Nogueira & Fátima Alves & Paula Vaz-Fernandes, 2021. "The Nutritional Content of Rescued Food Conveyed by a Food Aid Organization," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(22), pages 1-14, November.

    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. Lancsar, Emily & Louviere, Jordan & Donaldson, Cam & Currie, Gillian & Burgess, Leonie, 2013. "Best worst discrete choice experiments in health: Methods and an application," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-82.
    2. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    3. Qinxin Guo & Junyi Shen, 2019. "An Empirical Comparison Between Discrete Choice Experiment and Best-worst Scaling: A Case Study of Mobile Payment Choice," Discussion Paper Series DP2019-14, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    4. Yangui, Ahmed & Akaichi, Faical & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria, 2019. "Comparing results of ranking conjoint analyses, best–worst scaling and discrete choice experiments in a nonhypothetical context," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), April.
    5. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    6. Denise Doiron & Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "Stated preferences over job characteristics: A panel study," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 43-82, February.
    7. Hajji, Assma & Trukeschitz, Birgit & Malley, Juliette & Batchelder, Laurie & Saloniki, Eirini & Linnosmaa, Ismo & Lu, Hui, 2020. "Population-based preference weights for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT) for service users for Austria: Findings from a best-worst experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 250(C).
    8. Osman, Ahmed M.Y. & Wu, Jing & He, Xiaoning & Chen, Gang, 2021. "Eliciting SF-6Dv2 health state utilities using an anchored best-worst scaling technique," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    9. Cynthia I. Escobedo del Bosque & Achim Spiller & Antje Risius, 2021. "Who Wants Chicken? Uncovering Consumer Preferences for Produce of Alternative Chicken Product Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-21, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Scott, Anthony & Witt, Julia, 2020. "Loss aversion, reference dependence and diminishing sensitivity in choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    12. Samare P. I. Huls & Emily Lancsar & Bas Donkers & Jemimah Ride, 2022. "Two for the price of one: If moving beyond traditional single‐best discrete choice experiments, should we use best‐worst, best‐best or ranking for preference elicitation?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2630-2647, December.
    13. Hongsha Wang & Qihui Chen & Bhagyashree Katare, 2023. "Nudging Chinese consumers to embrace sustainable milk consumption: How should information be provided?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(S1), pages 1512-1534, December.
    14. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    15. Hall, Natasha Yvonne & Le, Long & Abimanyi-Ochom, Julie & Mihalopoulos, Cathy, 2023. "Measuring the importance of different barriers to opioid agonist treatment using best-worst scaling in an Australian setting," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    16. Jennifer A. Whitty & Julie Ratcliffe & Gang Chen & Paul A. Scuffham, 2014. "Australian Public Preferences for the Funding of New Health Technologies," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 638-654, July.
    17. Verity Watson & Frauke Becker & Esther de Bekker‐Grob, 2017. "Discrete Choice Experiment Response Rates: A Meta‐analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 810-817, June.
    18. Blake, Miranda R. & Lancsar, Emily & Peeters, Anna & Backholer, Kathryn, 2019. "Sugar-sweetened beverage price elasticities in a hypothetical convenience store," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 98-107.
    19. Jennifer A Whitty & Ruth Walker & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Think Aloud Study Comparing the Validity and Acceptability of Discrete Choice and Best Worst Scaling Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    20. Nicolas Krucien & Verity Watson & Mandy Ryan, 2017. "Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1-16, December.

    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:socmed:v:140:y:2015:i:c:p:1-8. 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/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.