IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apl/wpaper/09-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus

Author

Listed:
  • O. Ashton Morgan
  • Gregory S. Martin
  • William L. Huth

Abstract

A web-based contingent behavior analysis is developed to quantity the effect of both negative and positive information treatments and post harvest processes (PHP) on demand for oysters. Results from a panel model indicate that consumers of raw and cooked oysters behave differently after news of an oyster-related human mortality. While cooked oyster consumers take precautionary measures against risk, raw oyster consumers exhibit optimistic bias and increase their consumption level. Further, by varying the source of a counter-information treatment, we find that source credibility impacts behavior. Oyster consumers, and in particular, raw oyster consumers, are most responsive to information provided by a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization. Finally, post harvest processing of oysters has no impact on demand. Key Words: Oyster demand; consumer behavior; non-market valuation; Vibrio vulnificus; information treatments; source credibility; optimistic bias

Suggested Citation

  • O. Ashton Morgan & Gregory S. Martin & William L. Huth, 2009. "Oyster Demand Adjustments to Counter-Information and Source Treatments in Response to Vibrio vulnificus," Working Papers 09-08, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    • Handle: RePEc:apl:wpaper:09-08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econ.appstate.edu/RePEc/pdf/wp0908.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wallace E. Huffman & Matthew Rousu & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2004. "Who Do Consumers Trust for Information: The Case of Genetically Modified Foods?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1222-1229.
    2. Parsons, George R. & Morgan, Ash & Whitehead, John C. & Haab, Timothy C., 2006. "The Welfare Effects of Pfiesteria-Related Fish Kills: A Contingent Behavior Analysis of Seafood Consumers," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 348-356, October.
    3. Huffman, Wallace E. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2002. "Public Acceptance of and Benefits from Agricultural Biotechnology: a Key Role for Verifiable Information," ISU General Staff Papers 200201010800001402, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A. & Donath, Holger & Asche, Frank, 2001. "Measuring Consumer Preferences For Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Nicholas E. Piggott & Thomas L. Marsh, 2004. "Does Food Safety Information Impact U.S. Meat Demand?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 154-174.
    6. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    7. Timothy C. Haab & Kenneth E. McConnell, 2002. "Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2427.
    8. 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.
    9. Herriges, Joseph A. & Kling, Catherine L., 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment: Revealed Preference Methods in Theory and Practice, New Horizons in Environmental Economics," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12330, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Roger A. Dahlgran & Dean G. Fairchild, 2002. "The demand impacts of chicken contamination publicity-a case study," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 459-474.
    11. Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, 1986. "Relying on the Information of Interested Parties," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 18-32, Spring.
    12. Egan, Kevin & Herriges, Joseph, 2006. "Multivariate count data regression models with individual panel data from an on-site sample," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 567-581, September.
    13. Creel, Michael D & Loomis, John B, 1991. "Confidence Intervals for Welfare Measures with Application to a Problem of Truncated Counts," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(2), pages 370-373, May.
    14. Deborah J. Brown & Lee F. Schrader, 1990. "Cholesterol Information and Shell Egg Consumption," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(3), pages 548-555.
    15. David G. Swartz & Ivar E. Strand, Jr., 1981. "Avoidance Costs Associated with Imperfect Information: The Case of Kepone," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(2), pages 139-150.
    16. George R. Parsons & Ash O. Morgan & John C. Whitehead & Timothy C. Haab, 2005. "The Welfare Effects of Pfiesteria-Related Fish Kills in Seafood Markets: A Contingent Behavior Analysis," Working Papers 05-01, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    17. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling (ed.), 1999. "Valuing Recreation and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1315.
    18. Robert N. Shulstad & Herbert H. Stoevener, 1978. "The Effects of Mercury Contamination in Pheasants on the Value of Pheasant Hunting in Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(1), pages 39-49.
    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. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Yehouenou, Lauriane, 2017. "Is There A Market For Branded Gulf Of Mexico Oysters?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 45-65, February.
    2. Bruner, David M. & Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2014. "Consumer Valuation of Food Safety: The Case of Postharvest Processed Oysters," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 300-318, August.
    3. Petrolia, Daniel R. & Walton, William C. & Sarah, Acquah, 2014. "A National Survey of Consumer Preferences for Branded Gulf Oysters and Risk Perceptions of Gulf Seafood," Research Reports 190586, Mississippi State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    4. O. Morgan & John Whitehead & William Huth & Greg Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 593-611, April.
    5. Acquah, Sarah & Petrolia, Daniel, 2014. "Effect of branding Gulf oysters on consumers willingness to pay," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162449, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2012. "Willingness-to-Pay for Oyster Consumption Mortality Risk Reductions," Working Papers 12-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    7. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.
    8. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "Measuring the Impact of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Working Papers 13-11, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    9. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth & Gregory S. Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2020. "Altruistic and Private Values For Saving Lives With an Oyster Consumption Safety Program," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2413-2426, November.
    10. David M. Bruner & William L. Huth & David M. McEvoy & O. Ashton Morgan, 2011. "Accounting for Taste: Consumer Valuations for Food-Safety Technologies," Working Papers 11-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.

    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. O. Morgan & John Whitehead & William Huth & Greg Martin & Richard Sjolander, 2013. "A Split-Sample Revealed and Stated Preference Demand Model to Examine Homogenous Subgroup Consumer Behavior Responses to Information and Food Safety Technology Treatments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 593-611, April.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Onur Sapci & Ayse Sapci, 2020. "Consumer Perception of Food Expiration Labels: “Sell By” Versus “Expires On”," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 46(4), pages 673-689, October.
    4. Isabel Mendes & Isabel Proença, 2009. "Measuring the Social Recreation Per-Day Net Benefit of Wildlife Amenities of a National Park: A Count-Data Travel Cost Approach," Working Papers Department of Economics 2009/35, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    5. John C. Whitehead & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & George L. Van Houtven & Brett R. Gelso, 2008. "Combining Revealed And Stated Preference Data To Estimate The Nonmarket Value Of Ecological Services: An Assessment Of The State Of The Science," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 872-908, December.
    6. O. Ashton Morgan & D. Matthew Massey & William L. Huth, 2009. "Demand for Diving on Large Ship Artificial Reefs," Working Papers 09-09, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    7. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead & William L. Huth, 2016. "Accounting for heterogeneity in behavioural responses to health-risk information treatments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 283-297, September.
    8. Onur Sapci & Ayse Sapci, 0. "Consumer Perception of Food Expiration Labels: “Sell By” Versus “Expires On”," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 0, pages 1-17.
    9. Rieger, Jörg & Kuhlgatz, Christian & Anders, Sven, 2016. "Food scandals, media attention and habit persistence among desensitised meat consumers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 82-92.
    10. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    11. 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.
    12. Crooker, John R., 2007. "Nonparametric Bounds on Welfare with Measurement Error in Prices: Techniques for Non-Market Resource Valuation," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(2), pages 239-252, October.
    13. Yadavalli, Anita & Jones, Keithly, 2014. "Does media influence consumer demand? The case of lean finely textured beef in the United States," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 219-227.
    14. Poder, Thomas G. & He, Jie, 2017. "Willingness to pay for a cleaner car: The case of car pollution in Quebec and France," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 48-54.
    15. Zhou, Li & Turvey, Calum & Hu, Wuyang & Ying, Ruiyao, 2015. "Fear and Trust: How Risk Perceptions of Avian Influenza Affect the Demand for Chicken," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 202077, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Elofsson, Katarina & Bengtsson, Niklas & Matsdotter, Elina & Arntyr, Johan, 2016. "The impact of climate information on milk demand: Evidence from a field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 14-23.
    17. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2013. "Rational inattention or rational overreaction? Consumer reactions to health news," IFRO Working Paper 2013/14, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Mario Mazzocchi & Davide Delle Monache & Alexandra Lobb, 2006. "A structural time series approach to modelling multiple and resurgent meat scares in Italy," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(14), pages 1677-1688.
    19. Richards, Timothy J. & Allender, William J. & Fang, Di, 2011. "Media Advertising and Ballot Initiatives: An Experimental Analysis," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114814, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    oyster demand; consumer behavior; non-market valuation; vibrio vulnificus; information treatments; source credibility; optimistic bias;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:apl:wpaper:09-08. 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: O. Ashton Morgan (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deappus.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.