IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rco/dpaper/509.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Substitution Patterns and Price Response for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

Author

Listed:
  • Steffen Jahn

    (School of Economics and Business, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany)

  • Daniel Guhl

    (School of Business and Economics, Humboldt University Berlin, Germany)

  • Ainslee Erhard

    (Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Göttingen, Germany)

Abstract

Efforts to promote sustainable resource use through reduced meat consumption face challenges as global meat consumption persists. The resistance may be attributed to the lower sales price of meat compared to most plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs). Addressing this, our research delves into the pivotal question of which PBMAs resonate most with consumers and how pricing affects demand. In a hypothetical restaurant context, we conducted 2 representative studies among 2,126 individuals in the U.S. to scrutinize preferences for meat, analog, semi-analog, and non-analog burgers. First, in a survey, we assessed rankings of the four burgers, alongside evaluating participants' genuine consideration of these choices to discern a diverse preference distribution. Subsequently, in an experiment, we examined the influence of prices on participants' consideration and choice of PBMAs, thereby capturing both phases of the decision-making process. Our survey shows that meat has considerably higher utility and consumer preference than all PBMAs on average, but we also find substantial heterogeneity (i.e., some consumers prefer PBMAs over meat). In the experiment, we establish that there is a negative association between the consideration of meat and PBMA burgers, though consideration of any one PBMA is positively associated with considering other PBMAs. A noteworthy increase in consideration and choice is observed when prices of PBMAs are reduced, while changing the price of the meat burger only has minimal effect on demand. Such findings underscore the importance of affordability beyond price parity in catalyzing the shift towards plant-based diets.

Suggested Citation

  • Steffen Jahn & Daniel Guhl & Ainslee Erhard, 2024. "Substitution Patterns and Price Response for Plant-Based Meat Alternatives," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 509, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
  • Handle: RePEc:rco:dpaper:509
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://rationality-and-competition.de/wp-content/uploads/discussion_paper/509.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ali Aouad & Vivek Farias & Retsef Levi, 2021. "Assortment Optimization Under Consider-Then-Choose Choice Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3368-3386, June.
    2. Carpenter, Bob & Gelman, Andrew & Hoffman, Matthew D. & Lee, Daniel & Goodrich, Ben & Betancourt, Michael & Brubaker, Marcus & Guo, Jiqiang & Li, Peter & Riddell, Allen, 2017. "Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 76(i01).
    3. Akinc, Deniz & Vandebroek, Martina, 2018. "Bayesian estimation of mixed logit models: Selecting an appropriate prior for the covariance matrix," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 133-151.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    5. Koen Bel & Dennis Fok & Richard Paap, 2018. "Parameter estimation in multivariate logit models with many binary choices," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(5), pages 534-550, May.
    6. Lewandowski, Daniel & Kurowicka, Dorota & Joe, Harry, 2009. "Generating random correlation matrices based on vines and extended onion method," Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 100(9), pages 1989-2001, October.
    7. 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, November.
    8. Tatiana Dyachenko & Rebecca Walker Reczek & Greg M. Allenby, 2014. "Models of Sequential Evaluation in Best-Worst Choice Tasks," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(6), pages 828-848, November.
    9. Manrai, Ajay K. & Andrews, Rick L., 1998. "Two-stage discrete choice models for scanner panel data: An assessment of process and assumptions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 193-215, December.
    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. Rodrigues, Filipe, 2022. "Scaling Bayesian inference of mixed multinomial logit models to large datasets," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-17.
    2. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Entem, Alicia & Fenichel, Eli P. & Rouhi Rad, Mani, 2021. "The decade after tomorrow: Estimation of discount rates from realistic temporal decisions over long time horizons," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 158-174.
    3. Bansal, Prateek & Krueger, Rico & Bierlaire, Michel & Daziano, Ricardo A. & Rashidi, Taha H., 2020. "Bayesian estimation of mixed multinomial logit models: Advances and simulation-based evaluations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 124-142.
    4. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    9. 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.
    10. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    11. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    12. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    13. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    14. Deenihan, Gerard & Caulfield, Brian, 2015. "Do tourists value different levels of cycling infrastructure?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 92-101.
    15. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    16. Ateesha Mohamed & A. Hauber & Maureen Neary, 2011. "Patient Benefit-Risk Preferences for Targeted Agents in the Treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 29(11), pages 977-988, November.
    17. Lipovetsky, Stan, 2018. "Quantum paradigm of probability amplitude and complex utility in entangled discrete choice modeling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 62-73.
    18. Basu, Debasis & Hunt, John Douglas, 2012. "Valuing of attributes influencing the attractiveness of suburban train service in Mumbai city: A stated preference approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(9), pages 1465-1476.
    19. Gevrek, Z.Eylem & Uyduranoglu, Ayse, 2015. "Public preferences for carbon tax attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 186-197.
    20. Martine Audibert & Yong He & Jacky Mathonnat, 2013. "Two-Period Comparison of Healthcare Demand with Income Growth and Population Aging in Rural China: Implications for Adjustment of the Healthcare Supply and Development," Working Papers halshs-00846088, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Plant-based meat; Food decision making; Sustainability; Price elasticity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M31 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Marketing
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions

    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:rco:dpaper:509. 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: Viviana Lalli (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://rationality-and-competition.de .

    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.