IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea09/49444.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Valuation of Safety-Branded and Traceable Free Range Chicken in Ha Noi: Results from a Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Ifft, Jennifer
  • Roland-Holst, David W.
  • Zilberman, David

Abstract

The valuation of traceable or safety-branded food by consumers in developing countries affected by diseases such as avian influenza, or with food safety issues in general, is very difficult to identify. Products that have safety-branding are not common, and food is usually purchased by bargaining at informal markets. However, valuation of traceability has important implications for livestock disease policies as well as agricultural sector development. Through developing a short-term certified supply chain for free range chicken in Hanoi, we were able to conduct a combined field experiment and detailed household survey to measure the valuation of this type of poultry. We find that consumers in urban Hanoi on average have a welfare gain of about $1 per whole chicken purchase for safety-branding and traceability, which translates into a potential annual consumer welfare gain of $66 million for such characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Ifft, Jennifer & Roland-Holst, David W. & Zilberman, David, 2009. "Valuation of Safety-Branded and Traceable Free Range Chicken in Ha Noi: Results from a Field Experiment," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49444, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea09:49444
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.49444
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/49444/files/experiment_irhz.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.49444?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dickinson, David L. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2002. "Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing To Pay For It?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Abdellah Mdafri & B. Wade Brorsen, 1993. "Demand for red meat, poultry, and fish in Morocco: an almost ideal demand system," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(2), pages 155-163, August.
    3. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    5. Pingali, Prabhu, 2007. "Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems: Implications for research and policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 281-298, June.
    6. William A. Masters & Diakalia Sanogo, 2002. "Welfare Gains from Quality Certification of Infant Foods: Results from a Market Experiment in Mali," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 974-989.
    7. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    8. Maria L. Loureiro & Jill J. McCluskey & Ron C. Mittelhammer, 2003. "Are Stated Preferences Good Predictors of Market Behavior?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(1), pages 44-45.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. List, John A., 2009. "An introduction to field experiments in economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 439-442, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Jayson L. Lusk & W. Bruce Traill & Lisa O. House & Carlotta Valli & Sara R. Jaeger & Melissa Moore & Bert Morrow, 2006. "Comparative Advantage in Demand: Experimental Evidence of Preferences for Genetically Modified Food in the United States and European Union," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 1-21, March.
    13. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    14. Sanogo, Diakalia & Masters, William A., 2002. "The Value Of Quality Certification For Infant Foods: Results From A Market Experiment In Mali," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19601, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    15. Masayoshi Maruyama & Le Viet Trung, 2007. "Supermarkets in Vietnam: Opportunities and Obstacles," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 21(1), pages 19-46, March.
    16. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    17. Jill E. Hobbs, 2004. "Information asymmetry and the role of traceability systems," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 397-415.
    18. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    19. repec:feb:artefa:0089 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    2. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood & J. Ross Pruitt, 2006. "Consumer Demand for a Ban on Antibiotic Drug Use in Pork Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1015-1033.
    4. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    5. Westerberg, Vanja & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Lifran, Robert, 2013. "The case for offshore wind farms, artificial reefs and sustainable tourism in the French mediterranean," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 172-183.
    6. Linhai Wu & Xiaolin Liu & Dian Zhu & Hongsha Wang & Shuxian Wang & Lingling Xu, 2015. "Simulation of Market Demand for Traceable Pork with Different Levels of Safety Information: A Case Study in Chinese Consumers," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 513-537, December.
    7. Tavárez, Héctor & Álamo, Carmen & Cortés,Mildred, 2020. "Differentiated coffees and their potential markets in Puerto Rico: An economic valuation approach," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 20(02), December.
    8. 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).
    9. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2008. "Gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments: Evidence from an empirical study," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 275-285, November.
    10. 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.
    11. H. Holly Wang & Lu Liu & David L. Ortega & Yu Jiang & Qiujie Zheng, 2020. "Are smallholder farmers willing to pay for different types of crop insurance? An application of labelled choice experiments to Chinese corn growers," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 86-110, January.
    12. Lea Skræp Svenningsen, 2017. "Distributive outcomes matter: Measuring social preferences for climate policy," IFRO Working Paper 2017/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    13. Moser, Riccarda & Raffaelli, Roberta & Notaro, Sandra, 2010. "The Role Of Production Methods In Fruit Purchasing Behaviour: Hypothetical Vs Actual Consumers’ Preferences And Stated Minimum Requirements," 115th Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, September 15-17, 2010, Freising-Weihenstephan, Germany 116426, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Probst, Lorenz & Houedjofonon, Elysée & Ayerakwa, Hayford Mensah & Haas, Rainer, 2012. "Will they buy it? The potential for marketing organic vegetables in the food vending sector to strengthen vegetable safety: A choice experiment study in three West African cities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 296-308.
    15. Bosworth Ryan & Taylor Laura O., 2012. "Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-28, December.
    16. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    17. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    18. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    19. Karavolias, Joanna & House, Lisa A., "undated". "Impact of Producer and Use of Biotechnology on Consumer Willingness to Pay: Discounts Required for Oranges Produced with Biotechnology," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259981, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Demand and Price Analysis; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea09:49444. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.