IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v38y2011i4p587-607.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is embedding entailed in consumer valuation of food safety characteristics?

Author

Listed:
  • Morten Raun Mørkbak
  • Tove Christensen
  • Dorte Gyrd-Hansen
  • Søren Bøye Olsen

Abstract

Consumers' preferences for food safety characteristics are investigated with a particular focus on the existence of an embedding effect. Embedding exists if consumer valuation of food safety is insensitive to scope. We conduct between-attribute external tests for embedding in two choice experiments concerning the value of food safety attributes in minced pork and chicken breasts. We find no evidence of embedding neither when using food safety attributes that are not close substitutes and which exhibit both private and public good characteristics, nor when using food safety attributes that are closer substitutes and which have primarily private good characteristics. , Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Morten Raun Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen & Søren Bøye Olsen, 2011. "Is embedding entailed in consumer valuation of food safety characteristics?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(4), pages 587-607, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:38:y:2011:i:4:p:587-607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbr021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2013. "Comparing models of unobserved heterogeneity in environmental choice experiments," Working Papers 144447, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Boesch Irene & Weber Michael, 2012. "Processor's Preferences and Basic Differentiation Strategies for Potatoes, Milk, and Wheat in Switzerland," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-24, October.
    5. Belay, Dagim G. & Jensen, Jørgen D., 2020. "‘The scarlet letters’: Information disclosure and self-regulation: Evidence from antibiotic use in Denmark," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    6. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    7. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen, 2014. "A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 35-57, May.

    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:oup:erevae:v:38:y:2011:i:4:p:587-607. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.