IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ualbpr/52087.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Attitudes, Willingness to Pay and Revealed Preferences for Different Egg Production Attributes: Analysis of Canadian Egg Consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Goddard, Ellen W.
  • Boxall, Peter C.
  • Emunu, John Paul
  • Boyd, Curtis
  • Asselin, Andre
  • Neall, Amanda

Abstract

The Canadian egg industry has introduced a number of specialty eggs, including Omega-3, organic, free run/range, vitamin enhanced and vegetarian over the past few decades. These eggs are generally sold at prices higher than the ‘normal’ egg and there has been little analysis of the consumer awareness of and interest in purchasing these eggs. All previous econometric analysis of the Canadian egg market has assumed eggs and consumers are homogeneous. This study makes use of Stated preference and Revealed preference data to model the consumer interest in the different egg types. Stated preference surveys were conducted in two separate years: 2005 during which consumers were surveyed on their interest in Omega-3 and Vitamin Enhanced eggs relative to ‘normal’ eggs, white large, Grade A eggs, and 2006 during which consumers were surveyed on their interest in organic, freerun and vegetarian eggs relative to brown Grade-A eggs. Consumers were also assessed on their health behaviour, health consciousness, and in 2006 on their attitudes towards animal welfare, novelty foods, and environmental concerns. Results from this phase of the research suggested that among the sample of Alberta consumers, there is only modest interest in the specialty eggs, eggs, in general, are associated with other healthy behaviours, health conscious consumers are willing to pay more for specialty eggs, of all types, older consumers and consumers with families are significantly more price sensitive and hence, have constraints on their ability to purchase specialty eggs. As well, consumers with concerns about animal welfare will pay more for free run eggs, there is an increased interest in eggs with identified health attributes among older consumers. Revealed preference analysis of actual purchase behaviour was conducted on an A C Nielsen Homescan© panel data set over a three year period. Separate analyses were conducted for Alberta and Ontario frequent egg purchasers, with some significant differences across provinces. In Alberta no one is willing to pay more for specialty eggs than for normal eggs, with either modeling technique applied. In Ontario this assessment is less clear, the frequency model of how often across a three year period households purchased each type of egg, would suggest that consumers are willing to pay more for specialty eggs than for ‘normal’ eggs, with organic the egg that they are willing to pay the most for. At the same time the choice model for Ontario, a model of actual purchases across time with the type of egg as the dependent variable, suggests that consumers are willing to pay the most for ‘normal’ eggs with Free run and Organic close behind. Overall, as we look more closely at the relative ranking of specialty eggs, at the mean of all variables, organic eggs are the ones all households are willing to pay the most for. In the frequency model Alberta consumers’s willingness to pay for organic eggs is closest to the normal egg and Ontario consumers would pay $1.72 relative to normal eggs. The choice model exhibits similar patterns. Free run eggs are also popular in Ontario, but less so than organic. One of the findings of the study is that there may be some misunderstanding of the relative nutritional benefits of the different types of eggs or other human health aspects of agricultural production. Health seems to be an issue in the purchase of organic eggs as much as it does in the purchase of Omega-3 eggs. Further specific research on the reasons why consumers purchase organic would allow the industry to develop better marketing tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Goddard, Ellen W. & Boxall, Peter C. & Emunu, John Paul & Boyd, Curtis & Asselin, Andre & Neall, Amanda, 2007. "Consumer Attitudes, Willingness to Pay and Revealed Preferences for Different Egg Production Attributes: Analysis of Canadian Egg Consumers," Project Report Series 52087, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ualbpr:52087
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.52087
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/52087/files/PR%2007-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.52087?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. K. M. Chyc & E. W. Goddard, 1994. "Optimal investment in generic advertising and research: The case of the Canadian supply-managed egg market," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(2), pages 145-166.
    2. Bennett, Richard & Blaney, Ralph, 2002. "Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 501-520, August.
    3. Atsushi Maruyama & Masao Kikuchi, 2004. "Risk-learning process in forming willingness-to-pay for egg safety," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 167-179.
    4. Tülin Erdem & Susumu Imai & Michael Keane, 2003. "Brand and Quantity Choice Dynamics Under Price Uncertainty," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 5-64, March.
    5. Cason, Timothy N. & Gangadharan, Lata, 2002. "Environmental Labeling and Incomplete Consumer Information in Laboratory Markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 113-134, January.
    6. McCutcheon, Mary Lou & Goddard, Ellen W., 1991. "Optimal Social Payoff from Generic Advertising - The Case of the Canadian Supply Managed Egg Sector," 1991 Conference (35th), February 11-14, 1991, Armidale, Australia 145928, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. David L. Sunding, 2003. "The Role for Government in Differentiated Product Markets: Looking to Economic Theory," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(3), pages 720-724.
    8. Barewal, S. & Goddard, D., 1985. "The Parameters of Consumer Food Demand in Canada," Working Papers 243862, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
    9. Bennett, Richard M. & Blaney, Ralph J. P., 2003. "Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 85-98, July.
    10. Chintagunta, Pradeep & Kyriazidou, Ekaterini & Perktold, Josef, 2001. "Panel data analysis of household brand choices," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 103(1-2), pages 111-153, July.
    11. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L. & Swait, Joffre & Williams, Michael & Louviere, Jordan, 1996. "A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 243-253, September.
    12. Mary Lou McCutcheon & Ellen Goddard, 1992. "Optimal Producer and Social Payoff from Generic Advertising: The Case of the Canadian Supply-managed Egg Sector," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 40(1), pages 1-24, March.
    13. Wanki Moon & Wojciech J. Florkowski & Bernhard Brückner & Ilona Schonhof, 2002. "Willingness to Pay for Environmental Practices: Implications for Eco-Labeling," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(1), pages 88-102.
    14. Keane, Michael P, 1997. "Modeling Heterogeneity and State Dependence in Consumer Choice Behavior," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 15(3), pages 310-327, July.
    15. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2003. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-22, December.
    16. Chen, Kevin Z. & Chen, Chen, 2000. "Cross Product Censoring In A Demand System With Limited Dependent Variables: A Multivariate Probit Model Approach," Staff Paper Series 24073, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    17. Hailu, Getu & Goddard, Ellen W., 2004. "Nutrition and Health: Structural Analysis of Egg Consumption in Canada," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 19968, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    18. Keane, Michael, 1997. "Current Issues in Discrete Choice Modeling," MPRA Paper 52515, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Johnson, S. R. & Safyurtlu, A. N., 1984. "A Demand Matrix for Major Food Commodities in Canada," Working Papers 243870, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
    20. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    21. André M. Asselin, 2005. "Eggcentric Behavior—Consumer Characteristics That Demonstrate Greater Willingness to Pay for Functionality," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1339-1344.
    22. Bruce A. Babcock & John Miranowski & Roxana Carbone, 2002. "Initial Analysis of Adoption of Animal Welfare Guidelines on the U.S. Egg Industry, An," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 02-bp37, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    23. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, 2001. "Annual Report 2001," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 14271.
    24. Park, Changwon & Senauer, Benjamin, 1996. "Estimation Of Household Brand-Size Choice Models For Spaghetti Products With Scanner Data," Working Papers 14336, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    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. Cao, Ying & Chen, Chen & Cranfield, John & Widowski, Tina, 2017. "Market Responses to Information Conveying Mixed Messages – Prediction of Informational Impacts on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Eggs from Welfare Enhanced Cage Systems using Discrete Choice Experime," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258545, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    3. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Satimanon, Thasanee & Weatherspoon, Dave D., 2010. "Hedonic Analysis of Sustainable Food Products," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17.

    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. Andrew Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael Keane, 2009. "The price consideration model of brand choice," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(3), pages 393-420, April.
    2. Lisette Ibanez & Gilles Grolleau, 2008. "Can Ecolabeling Schemes Preserve the Environment?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 40(2), pages 233-249, June.
    3. Aguirregabiria, Victor & Gu, Jiaying & Luo, Yao, 2021. "Sufficient statistics for unobserved heterogeneity in structural dynamic logit models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 280-311.
    4. Boyle, Glenn, 2008. "The Dog That Doesn't Bark: Animal Interests in Economics," Working Paper Series 4017, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    5. Chan, Tat Y. & Narasimhan, Chakravarthi & Yoon, Yeujun, 2017. "Advertising and price competition in a manufacturer-retailer channel," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 694-716.
    6. Marcellino, Dana M. & Wilson, Christine A., 2006. "The Current State and Value of Farm Record Keeping," 2006 Agricultural and Rural Finance Markets in Transition, October 2-3, 2006, Washington, DC 133087, Regional Research Committee NC-1014: Agricultural and Rural Finance Markets in Transition.
    7. Victor Aguirregabiria, 2023. "Dynamic demand for differentiated products with fixed-effects unobserved heterogeneity," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 26(1), pages 1-25.
    8. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    9. Hu, Yingyao, 2017. "The Econometrics of Unobservables -- Latent Variable and Measurement Error Models and Their Applications in Empirical Industrial Organization and Labor Economics [The Econometrics of Unobservables]," Economics Working Paper Archive 64578, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics, revised 2021.
    10. Andrew T. Ching & Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane, 2020. "How much do consumers know about the quality of products? Evidence from the diaper market," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 541-569, October.
    11. Jean‐Pierre Dubé & Günter J. Hitsch & Peter E. Rossi, 2010. "State dependence and alternative explanations for consumer inertia," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(3), pages 417-445, September.
    12. Naald, Brian Vander & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2011. "Willingness to pay for other species' well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1325-1335, May.
    13. Douadia Bougherara & Virginie Piguet, 2008. "Marchés avec coûts d'information sur la qualité des biens : une application aux produits écolabellisés," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(1), pages 77-96.
    14. Junyi Shen & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2007. "Does energy efficiency label alter consumers f purchase decision? A latent class approach on Shanghai data," OSIPP Discussion Paper 07E005, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University.
    15. Tülin Erdem & Michael P. Keane & Baohong Sun, 2008. "A Dynamic Model of Brand Choice When Price and Advertising Signal Product Quality," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 1111-1125, 11-12.
    16. Yoo, Do-il, 2012. "Individual and Social Learning in Bio-technology Adoption: The Case of GM Corn in the U.S," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124975, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Morten Overgaard Ravn & Stephanie Schmitt-Grohe & Martin Uribe, 2010. "Incomplete Cost Pass-Through Under Deep Habits," Review of Economic Dynamics, Elsevier for the Society for Economic Dynamics, vol. 13(2), pages 317-332, April.
    18. Wendy J. Umberger & Dawn D. Thilmany McFadden & Amanda R. Smith, 2009. "Does altruism play a role in determining U.S. consumer preferences and willingness to pay for natural and regionally produced beef?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(2), pages 268-285.
    19. Reberte, J. Carlos & Schmit, Todd M. & Kaiser, Harry M., 1996. "An Ex Post Evaluation of Generic Egg Advertising in the U.S," Economic Evaluation of Commodity Promotion Programs in the Current Legal and Political Environment, October 7-8, 1996, Monterey, California 279662, Regional Research Projects > NECC-63: Research Committee on Commodity Promotion.
    20. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Zhifeng & Swisher, Marilyn & House, Lisa & Zhao, Xin, 2018. "Eco-labeling in the Fresh Produce Market: Not All Environmentally Friendly Labels Are Equally Valued," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 201-210.

    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:ualbpr:52087. 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/drualca.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.