IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/149662.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Acceptance of and Willingness to Pay for Nanofood: Case of Canola Oil

Author

Listed:
  • Zhou, Guzhen
  • Hu, Wuyang
  • Schieffer, Jack
  • Robbins, Lynn

Abstract

Nanotechnology has tremendous potential in food and agriculture. Few economic studies focused on specific products made using nanotechnology, let alone food or food related products. Using a national choice experiment survey, this analysis examines consumers’ valuations for nano-attributes. As implied, consumers were willing to pay less for canola oil if it was produced from nanoscale-modified seed; less if the final products were packed with nanotechnology-enhanced packaging technique; and no significant difference was found for oil that was designed with health enhancing nano-engineered oil drops, which would require interaction with the human digestive system. Additionally, the results revealed unobserved heterogeneities among respondents in their willingness-to-pay for canola oil attributes. Findings from this study will help bridge the gap between scientific innovation and public policy and social-economic concerns. Implications for government policy that can be efficiently used to monitor and regulate these technologies were also investigated.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhou, Guzhen & Hu, Wuyang & Schieffer, Jack & Robbins, Lynn, 2013. "Public Acceptance of and Willingness to Pay for Nanofood: Case of Canola Oil," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149662, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:149662
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.149662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/149662/files/aaea%20manuscript%20P2657%20final.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.149662?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. Arne Hole & Julie Kolstad, 2012. "Mixed logit estimation of willingness to pay distributions: a comparison of models in preference and WTP space using data from a health-related choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 445-469, April.
    2. Roosen, Jutta & Bieberstein, Andrea & Marette, Stephan & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Vandermoere, Frederic, 2011. "The Effect of Information Choice and Discussion on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay for Nanotechnologies in Food," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-10, August.
    3. Kar H. Lim & Wuyang Hu & Leigh J. Maynard & Ellen Goddard, 2013. "U.S. Consumers’ Preference and Willingness to Pay for Country-of-Origin-Labeled Beef Steak and Food Safety Enhancements," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 61(1), pages 93-118, March.
    4. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244, March.
    5. Søren Olsen, 2009. "Choosing Between Internet and Mail Survey Modes for Choice Experiment Surveys Considering Non-Market Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(4), pages 591-610, December.
    6. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    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. Khachatryan, Hayk & Suh, Dong Hee & Xu, Wan & Useche, Pilar & Dukes, Michael D., 2019. "Towards sustainable water management: Preferences and willingness to pay for smart landscape irrigation technologies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 33-41.
    2. Morrissey, Karyn & Plater, Andrew & Dean, Mary, 2018. "The cost of electric power outages in the residential sector: A willingness to pay approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 141-150.
    3. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    4. Liu, Zhaoyang & Hanley, Nick & Campbell, Danny, 2020. "Linking urban air pollution with residents’ willingness to pay for greenspace: A choice experiment study in Beijing," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    6. Lee, Sang Hyeon & Lee, Ji Yong & Han, Doo Bong & Nayga, Rodolfo M. Jr., 2014. "Assessing Korean Consumers' Valuation for BSE-Tested and Country of Origin Labeled Beef Products," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 37(3), pages 1-21.
    7. Lim, Kar Ho & Hu, Wuyang & Maynard, Leigh J. & Goddard, Ellen W., 2012. "Stated Preference and Perception Analysis for Traceable and BSE-tested Beef: An Application of Mixed Error-Component Logit Model," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124784, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Tomasz Gajderowicz & Maciej Jakubowski & Sylwia Wrona & Ghadah Alkhadim, 2023. "Is students’ teamwork a dreamwork? A new DCE-based multidimensional approach to preferences towards group work," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    9. Abildtrup, Jens & Garcia, Serge & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Stenger, Anne, 2013. "Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 67-77.
    10. Guzhen Zhou & Wuyang Hu & Wenchao Huang, 2016. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Sustainable Products? A Study of Eco-Labeled Tuna Steak," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "Food values and heterogeneous consumer responses to nanotechnology," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 68(3), pages 289-313, September.
    13. Khachatryan, Hayk & Zhou, Guzhen, 2014. "Preferences for Sustainable Lawn Care Practices: The Choice of Lawn Fertilizers," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170210, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Sibiko, Kenneth W. & Veettil, Prakashan C. & Qaim, Matin, 2016. "Small Farmers’ Preferences for Weather Index Insurance: Insights from Kenya," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246399, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    15. 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.
    16. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Sobolewski, Maciej & Czajkowski, MikoŁaj, 2012. "Network effects and preference heterogeneity in the case of mobile telecommunications markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 197-211.
    18. Federico Pontoni & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Stefania Troiano, 2016. "Choice experiments and environmental taxation: An application to the Italian hydropower sector," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(3), pages 99-118.
    19. 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.
    20. Anna Kollerup & Jacob Ladenburg, 2021. "Willingness to pay for accommodating job attributes when returning to work after cancer treatment: A discrete choice experiment with Danish breast cancer survivors," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 35(3), pages 378-411, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy; Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Marketing; Research Methods/ Statistical Methods;
    All these keywords.

    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:aaea13:149662. 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.