IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v13y2023i9p1743-d1231452.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Is the Willingness to Pay for a Basket of Agricultural Goods? Multi-Features of Organic, Animal Welfare-Based and Natural Products with No Additives

Author

Listed:
  • Yan-Shiang Chiou

    (Department of Agricultural Extension, Luzhou District Farmers’ Association, New Taipei City 247020, Taiwan)

  • Pei-Ing Wu

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, National Taiwan University, Taipei 106319, Taiwan)

  • Je-Liang Liou

    (The Center for Green Economy, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research, Taipei 106220, Taiwan)

  • Ta-Ken Huang

    (Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, Tamkang University, New Taipei City 251301, Taiwan)

  • Chu-Wei Chen

    (The Third Research Division, Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research, Taipei 106319, Taiwan)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to construct a model by combining the theory of planned behavior (TPB) with conjoint analysis to evaluate baskets of agricultural goods. Each basket of agricultural goods contains various different products, including white rice and leaf vegetables are either organic or non-organic, hens’ eggs and chicken drumsticks obtained from chickens bred with and without due consideration for animal welfare, and soy sauce and jam with or without additives. The evaluation of these various features is innovative and in accordance with the shopping behavior of most consumers who, most of the time, concurrently evaluate these multi-features and multi-products. The price premium for each feature and the willingness to pay, the highest amount that a consumer is willing to pay, for a specific basket of agricultural goods is evaluated by using the multinomial logit model and the linear regression model. The relationship between essential factors in the TPB and the sociodemographic characteristics of consumers is examined. In general, the ranking of the price premium paid for products from the highest to the lowest is soy sauce, jam, chicken drumsticks, white rice, hens’ eggs, and leaf vegetables, respectively. The price premium for natural products with no additives is higher than that for organic and animal welfare-based products. The evaluation of these multi-features of agricultural goods allows us to observe the relative importance of an agricultural product through the price premium, with different combinations of other products. This indicates that the evaluation of the price premium for only a single product or for multiple products with a single feature might be either over-estimated or under-estimated.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan-Shiang Chiou & Pei-Ing Wu & Je-Liang Liou & Ta-Ken Huang & Chu-Wei Chen, 2023. "What Is the Willingness to Pay for a Basket of Agricultural Goods? Multi-Features of Organic, Animal Welfare-Based and Natural Products with No Additives," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:9:p:1743-:d:1231452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/9/1743/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/13/9/1743/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Pawlewicz, 2020. "Change of Price Premiums Trend for Organic Food Products: The Example of the Polish Egg Market," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    2. Eva Johansson & Abrar Hussain & Ramune Kuktaite & Staffan C. Andersson & Marie E. Olsson, 2014. "Contribution of Organically Grown Crops to Human Health," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, April.
    3. 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.
    4. Thong Meas & Wuyang Hu & Marvin T. Batte & Timothy A. Woods & Stan Ernst, 2015. "Substitutes or Complements? Consumer Preference for Local and Organic Food Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1044-1071.
    5. Yang Zhang & Jingyi Li & Bing Xu, 2020. "Designing Buy-Online-and-Pick-Up-in-Store (BOPS) Contract of Dual-Channel Low-Carbon Supply Chain considering Consumers’ Low-Carbon Preference," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2020, pages 1-15, July.
    6. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    7. Maria-Magdalena Roșu & Rodica Ianole-Călin & Raluca Dinescu & Anca Bratu & Răzvan-Mihail Papuc & Anastasia Cosma, 2021. "Understanding Consumer Stockpiling during the COVID-19 Outbreak through the Theory of Planned Behavior," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(16), pages 1-15, August.
    8. Giuseppina Rizzo & Massimiliano Borrello & Giovanni Dara Guccione & Giorgio Schifani & Luigi Cembalo, 2020. "Organic Food Consumption: The Relevance of the Health Attribute," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-12, January.
    9. Gadema, Zaina & Oglethorpe, David, 2011. "The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: A policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 815-822.
    10. Anh Thi Van Tran & Nhung Thi Nguyen, 2021. "Organic Food Consumption among Households in Hanoi: Importance of Situational Factors," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-16, November.
    11. Ahmed Yangui & Faical Akaichi & Montserrat Costa‐Font & José Maria Gil, 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), pages 221-246, April.
    12. Rodolfo Bernabéu & Margarita Brugarolas & Laura Martínez-Carrasco & Roberto Nieto-Villegas & Adrián Rabadán, 2023. "The Price of Organic Foods as a Limiting Factor of the European Green Deal: The Case of Tomatoes in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-15, February.
    13. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    14. 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.
    15. Baker, Gregory A., 1999. "Consumer Preferences For Food Safety Attributes In Fresh Apples: Market Segments, Consumer Characteristics, And Marketing Opportunities," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(01), pages 1-18, July.
    16. Yang, Yu-Chen, 2018. "Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to pay for animal welfare eggs in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    17. Daniel Francisco Pais & António Cardoso Marques & José Alberto Fuinhas, 2023. "How to Promote Healthier and More Sustainable Food Choices: The Case of Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-23, February.
    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. Ning Geng & Zengjin Liu & Xibing Han & Xiaoyu Zhang, 2022. "Influencing Factors and Group Differences of Urban Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Low-Carbon Agricultural Products in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, December.
    2. John Cranfield & B. James Deaton & Shreenivas Shellikeri, 2009. "Evaluating Consumer Preferences for Organic Food Production Standards," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(1), pages 99-117, March.
    3. Christian P Theurer & Andranik Tumasjan & Isabell M Welpe, 2018. "Contextual work design and employee innovative work behavior: When does autonomy matter?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-35, October.
    4. van Hoesel, C.P.M. & Goossens, J.H.M. & Kroon, L.G., 2001. "A branch-and-cut approach for solving line planning problems," Research Memorandum 016, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    5. Yu-Hui Chen & Kai-Han Qiu & Kang Ernest Liu & Chun-Yuan Chiang, 2020. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay a Premium for Pure Rice Noodles? A Study of Discrete Choice Experiments in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    6. BAGLIONE, Stephen L. & TUCCI, Louis A. & STANTON, John L., 2019. "Organic Food: Identifying Actionable Segments," Holistic Marketing Management Journal, Holistic Marketing Management, vol. 9(1), pages 10-27, March.
    7. Raza, Syed Ali & Shah, Nida & Nisar, Wasay, 2019. "Consumer Buying Behavior of Organic Food with Respect to Health and Safety Concerns among Adolescents," MPRA Paper 93570, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Aguilar, Francisco X., 2009. "Investment preferences for wood-based energy initiatives in the US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2292-2299, June.
    9. András István Kun & Marietta Kiss, 2021. "On the Mechanics of the Organic Label Effect: How Does Organic Labeling Change Consumer Evaluation of Food Products?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-25, January.
    10. Chenyi He & Ruifeng Liu & Zhifeng Gao & Xin Zhao & Charles A. Sims & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2021. "Does local label bias consumer taste buds and preference? Evidence of a strawberry sensory experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(3), pages 550-568, July.
    11. Wirth, Ferdinand F. & Stanton, John L. & Wiley, James B., 2011. "The Relative Importance of Search versus Credence Product Attributes: Organic and Locally Grown," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(01), pages 1-15, April.
    12. Cai, Lanhui & Yuen, Kum Fai & Xie, Diancen & Fang, Mingjie & Wang, Xueqin, 2021. "Consumer's usage of logistics technologies: Integration of habit into the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    13. Steiner, B.E. & Peschel, A.O. & Grebitus, C., 2017. "Multi-Product Category Choices Labeled for Ecological Footprints: Exploring Psychographics and Evolved Psychological Biases for Characterizing Latent Consumer Classes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 251-264.
    14. Douglas, Evan J., 2013. "Reconstructing entrepreneurial intentions to identify predisposition for growth," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 633-651.
    15. Alvino, Letizia & Dangelico, Rosa Maria, 2022. "Investigating the antecedents of consumer behavioral intention for sustainable fashion products: Evidence from a large survey of Italian consumers," Other publications TiSEM ed6b6a75-2a9f-4b6e-8076-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    17. Kostoula Margariti, 2021. "“White” Space and Organic Claims on Food Packaging: Communicating Sustainability Values and Affecting Young Adults’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-26, October.
    18. Aleksandra Kowalska & Monika Ratajczyk & Louise Manning & Milena Bieniek & Radosław Mącik, 2021. "“Young and Green” a Study of Consumers’ Perceptions and Reported Purchasing Behaviour towards Organic Food in Poland and the United Kingdom," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-23, November.
    19. Bogdan Nichifor & Luminita Zait & Laura Timiras, 2025. "Drivers, Barriers, and Innovations in Sustainable Food Consumption: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-44, March.
    20. Sangkumchaliang, Parichard & Huang, Wen-Chi, 2012. "Consumers’ Perceptions and Attitudes of Organic Food Products in Northern Thailand," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 15(01), pages 1-16, February.

    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:gam:jagris:v:13:y:2023:i:9:p:1743-:d:1231452. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.