Eliciting Egg Consumer Preferences for Organic Labels and Omega 3 Claims in Italy and Hungary
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Organic Labelled Foods in the European Union
1.2. Egg Market and Consumption
1.3. Consumers’ Preference and Perception of Organic Labelled Food
1.4. Importance of Nutrition and Health Claims for Eggs
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Theoretical Framework
2.2. Survey Instrument and Design
2.3. Data Collection
3. Results
3.1. RPL Model Estimates
3.2. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) Estimates and Profiles
3.3. Willingness to Pay Estimates
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Country | Hungary | Italy |
---|---|---|
N | 403 | 404 |
WTP | WTP | |
Organic labels | ||
No label | −0.54 | −0.91 |
EU organic | 0.01 | 0.11 |
EU organic and national organic | 0.52 | 0.81 |
Nutrition and health claims | ||
No-claim | −0.89 | −1.37 |
Nutrition claim | 0.37 | 0.22 |
Nutrition and health claim | 0.52 | 1.15 |
N | Hungary | Italy | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
403 | 404 | |||||||
Group 1 Health Conscious Buyers | Group 2 Price Sensitive and Quality Optimizing Opportunist Consumers | Group 3 Unlabelled Eggs Seekers | Group 1 Health Conscious Buyers | Group 2 Price Sensitive Consumers | Group 3 Clean Labelling Consumers | |||
46.40% | 45.60% | 8.00% | K-W test | 49.00% | 39.50% | 11.60% | K-W test | |
Gender | ||||||||
Female (%) | 46.6 | 49.6 | 50 | 51.0 | 53.7 | 52.2 | ||
Male (%) | 53.4 | 50.4 | 50 | 49.0 | 46.3 | 47.8 | ||
Age | 42.2 | 42.2 | 45.6 | 43.5 | 42.4 | 44.4 | ||
Living location | * | |||||||
Rural area (%) | 13.6 | 15.4 | 25.0 | 10.8 | 13.4 | 28.3 | ||
Small size town (%) | 42.4 | 37.5 | 46.9 | 46.4 | 46.3 | 37.0 | ||
Large city (%) | 44.0 | 47.1 | 28.1 | 42.8 | 40.2 | 34.8 | ||
Education | ||||||||
Up to secondary school education (%) | 36.1 | 25.0 | 31.1 | 52.2 | 48.2 | 44.3 | ||
University degree, vocational training or higher (%) | 63.9 | 75.0 | 68.9 | 47.8 | 51.8 | 55.7 | ||
How often do you buy organic egg? (1 indicates Never, 7 indicates Every time) | 2.7 | 3.1 | 2.6 | * | 4.6 | 3.8 | 4.5 | *** |
How often do you buy eggs with high in omega 3 fatty acids? (1 indicates Never, 7 indicates Every time) | 2.6 | 3.0 | 1.8 | *** | 3.4 | 2.6 | 2.3 | *** |
How often do you buy eggs at a farmers market or farm shop? (1 indicates Never, 7 indicates Every time) | 4.4 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 3.9 | 3.4 | 4.2 | ** | |
What price do you normally pay for a 6-pack of eggs? | *** | |||||||
(HU) Below c.a. EUR 0.49/(IT) Below 1.40 EUR (%) | 0.5 | 1.7 | 9.4 | 3.6 | 23.2 | 13.0 | ||
(HU) Between c.a. EUR 0.50–EUR 0.72/(IT) Between 1.40 EUR and 1.70 EUR (%) | 36.1 | 19.4 | 34.4 | 21.1 | 42.1 | 37.0 | ||
(HU) Between c.a. EUR 0.72–EUR 0.94/(IT) Between 1.71 EUR and 2.00 EUR (%) | 40.3 | 33.3 | 25.0 | 29.4 | 22.0 | 17.4 | ||
(HU) Between c.a. EUR 0.95–EUR 1.17/(IT) Between 2.01 EUR and 2.30 EUR (%) | 9.9 | 22.8 | 9.4 | 19.6 | 3.7 | 4.3 | ||
(HU) Between c.a. EUR 1.18–EUR 1.40 (IT) Between 2.31 EUR and 2.60 EUR (%) | 9.4 | 11.1 | 6.3 | 10.3 | 3.0 | 15.2 | ||
(HU) Between c.a. EUR 1.41–EUR 1.62/(IT) Between 2.61 EUR and 2.90 EUR (%) | 1.0 | 8.3 | 3.1 | 5.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
(HU) More than c.a. EUR 1.63/(IT) More than 2.90 EUR (%) | 1.0 | 2.2 | 3.1 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 2.2 | ||
Do not remember (%) | 1.6 | 1.1 | 9.4 | 8.8 | 6.1 | 10.9 | ||
How often do you buy eggs? | ** | |||||||
About or Less than three times a month (%) | 72.8 | 56.7 | 59.4 | 63.4 | 61.6 | 65.2 | ||
About or more than once a week (%) | 27.2 | 43.3 | 40.6 | 36.6 | 38.4 | 34.8 | ||
How often do you eat eggs? | ||||||||
Once a week or les (%) | 45.0 | 45 | 50.0 | 63.4 | 69.5 | 71.7 | ||
More than once a week (%) | 55.0 | 55.0 | 50.0 | 36.6 | 30.5 | 28.3 | ||
It is important to me that the food I eat on a typical day… (1 indicates strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree) | ||||||||
…is healthy. | 5.65 | 5.73 | 5.06 | 5.79 | 5.71 | 5.57 | ||
…is a way of managing my mood (e.g., a good feeling or coping with stress). | 4.95 | 5.07 | 4.47 | 5.18 | 4.92 | 4.52 | *** | |
…is convenient (in buying and cooking). | 5.34 | 5.28 | 4.84 | 5.19 | 5.20 | 4.91 | ||
…provides me with pleasure (e.g., appearance, texture, smell, taste). | 5.67 | 5.57 | 5.13 | 5.74 | 5.77 | 5.41 | ||
…is natural (no additives, only natural ingredients). | 5.35 | 5.56 | 5.19 | 5.63 | 5.41 | 5.50 | ||
…is affordable. | 6.15 | 5.84 | 5.69 | 4.54 | 5.15 | 4.76 | *** | |
…helps me control my weight. | 4.74 | 4.87 | 4.44 | 5.14 | 4.95 | 4.83 | ||
…is familiar. | 5.16 | 5.16 | 4.75 | 4.94 | 4.60 | 4.35 | ** | |
…is environmentally friendly. | 5.09 | 5.41 | 4.81 | * | 5.36 | 5.00 | 5.24 | ** |
…is animal friendly. | 4.68 | 5.23 | 4.38 | *** | 5.51 | 5.15 | 5.28 | ** |
…is produced and traded in a fair manner. | 5.07 | 5.27 | 5.88 | 5.18 | 4.74 | 5.20 | *** | |
Monthly net household income | ||||||||
(HU) < 150,000 HUK (c.a. EUR 486)/(IT) < EUR 900 (%) | 11.5 | 3.1 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 8.5 | 6.5 | ||
(HU) 150,001–205,000 HUF (c.a. EUR 487–EUR 664)/(IT) EUR 900–EUR 1500 (%) | 14.1 | 18.8 | 18.8 | 19.6 | 22.6 | 19.6 | ||
(HU) 205,001–235,000 HUF (c.a. EUR 665–EUR 761)/(IT) EUR 1501–EUR 2500 (%) | 11.0 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 26.3 | 31.1 | 30.4 | ||
(HU) 235,001–380,000 HUF (c.a. EUR 762–EUR 1231)/(IT) EUR 2501–EUR 3500 (%) | 29.8 | 28.1 | 28.1 | 22.2 | 14.6 | 15.2 | ||
(HU) 380,001–835,000 HUF (EUR 1232–EUR 2705)/(IT) EUR 3501–EUR 4500 (%) | 25.7 | 28.1 | 28.1 | 12.4 | 5.5 | 8.7 | ||
(HU) ≥ 835,001 HUF (c.a. EUR 2706)/(IT) ≥ EUR 4501 (%) | 2.1 | 6.3 | 6.3 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 0.0 | ||
Prefer not to answer (%) | 5.8 | 9.4 | 9.4 | 12.4 | 14.0 | 19.6 | ||
Household size | 2.96 | 2.93 | 3.09 | 2.93 | 2.95 | 2.89 | ||
Number of kids | 0.61 | 0.56 | 0.63 | 0.57 | 0.47 | 0.65 |
References
- European Commission. Europeans’ Attitudes Towards Food Security, Food Quality and the Countryside 2012. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_389_en.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2020).
- European Commission. Europeans, Agriculture and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) 2014. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_410_en.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2020).
- European Commission. Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP 2016. Available online: https://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjl3eXu4cfrAhUlGaYKHRT0DDEQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2FCOMMFrontOffice%2FPublicOpinion%2Findex.cfm%2FResultDoc%2Fdownload%2FDocumentKy%2F69756&usg=AOvVaw2gqUNtyndysnLJ2HiCd96s (accessed on 12 February 2020).
- European Commission. Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/82123 (accessed on 24 April 2020).
- Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL). Data on Organic Agriculture in Europe. Volume 2019. Available online: https://statistics.fibl.org/europe.html (accessed on 18 February 2020).
- Banks, Q.D. Grade standards and product identification labels influence the demand for eggs and other farm products. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1963, 45, 1365–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database (FAOSTAT). New Food Balances. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/FBS (accessed on 2 December 2019).
- European Commission. EU Agricultural Outlook for Markets and Income 2019-2030. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/farming/facts-and-figures/markets/outlook/medium-term_en (accessed on 15 February 2020).
- Bennett, R. Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 1997, 22, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, D.J.; Schrader, L.F. Cholesterol Information and Shell Egg Consumption. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1990, 72, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fearne, A.; Lavelle, D. Segmenting the UK egg market: Results of a survey of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Br. Food J. 1996, 98, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monier, S.; Hassan, D.; Nichèle, V.; Simioni, M. Organic Food Consumption Patterns. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 2009, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gracia, A.; Barreiro-Hurle, J.; Galán, B.L. Are Local and Organic Claims Complements or Substitutes? A Consumer Preferences Study for Eggs. J. Agric. Econ. 2014, 65, 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerini, F.; Alfnes, F.; Schjøll, A. Organic- and Animal Welfare-labelled Eggs: Competing for the Same Consumers? J. Agric. Econ. 2016, 67, 471–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Erdős, A.D.; Szőllősi, L. A tojástermelés és-fogyasztás nemzetközi és magyarországi helyzete, főbb tendenciái. Anim. Welf. Etol. Tartástechnológia 2018, 14, 8–14. [Google Scholar]
- Molnár, S.; Szőllősi, L. Az étkezési tojás fogyasztási szokásainak főbb jellemzői Magyarországon. Táplálkozásmarketing 2014, 1, 133–138. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Per Capita Egg Consumption. 2017. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production#per-capita-egg-consumption (accessed on 3 April 2020).
- Mercati, I. Analisi e Studio Filiere Agroalimentari. Available online: http://www.ismeamercati.it/analisi-e-studio-filiere-agroalimentari (accessed on 3 April 2020).
- Eurostat. Organic Production of Animal Products. Available online: https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=org_aprod&lang=en (accessed on 2 December 2019).
- Kiss, C.; Vincze, J.; Tenk, A.; Paszthy, G.; Toaso, S. Fogyasztói vélemények a bio-sertéshúsról, illetve a sertéshúsfogyasztásról. Gazdálkodás 2005, 49, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Gergely, É.; Szabó, B.; Balázs, K. Az egészség-és környezettudatosság, valamint az értékrend hatása a bioélelmiszer-fogyasztásra. Mark. Menedzsment 2014, 48, 27–37. [Google Scholar]
- Borsos-Repka, N. A mai magyar bio-élelmiszerpiac néhány jellegzetessége. Árak, vevők és eladók. Tarsadalomkutatas 2010, 28, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dörnyei, K. Bioélelmiszer-fogyasztási szokások: Szegmentálás és a bizalom fontossága. Mark. Menedzsment 2008, 42, 34–42. [Google Scholar]
- Nagy-Pércsi, K.; Fogarassy, C. Important Influencing and Decision Factors in Organic Food Purchasing in Hungary. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Horváth, Á.; Kovács, A.; Gyenge, B. A vásárlók biotermékekkel szembeni attitűdje a hiper-és szupermarketekben. Mark. Menedzsment 2003, 37, 23–34. [Google Scholar]
- Szente, V.; Szigeti, O.; Polereczki, Z.; Varga, Á.; Szakály, Z. Towards a new strategy for organic milk marketing in Hungary. Acta Aliment. 2015, 44, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hofer, M. Bioélelmiszerek Fogyasztásának Tendenciája Magyarországon. Ph.D. Thesis, Széchenyi István Egyetem, Győr, Hungary, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Szente, V. Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic foods in Hungary. Acta Fytotech. Zootech. 2015, 18, 145–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Annunziata, A.; Massimiliano, A.; Mariani, A. Measuring sustainable food consumption: A case study on organic food. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vecchio, R.; Van Loo, E.J.; Annunziata, A. Consumers’ willingness to pay for conventional, organic and functional yogurt: Evidence from experimental auctions. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 40, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Annunziata, A.; Mariani, A.; Vecchio, R.; Annunziata, A.; Angela, M.; Riccardo, V. Effectiveness of sustainability labels in guiding food choices: Analysis of visibility and understanding among young adults. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. The mandatory EU logo for organic food: Consumer perceptions. Br. Food J. 2012, 114, 335–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carfora, V.; Cavallo, C.; Caso, D.; Del Giudice, T.; De Devitiis, B.; Viscecchia, R.; Nardone, G.; Cicia, G. Explaining consumer purchase behavior for organic milk: Including trust and green self-identity within the theory of planned behavior. Food Qual. Preference 2019, 76, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scalvedi, M.L.; Saba, A. Exploring local and organic food consumption in a holistic sustainability view. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 749–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heng, Y.; Peterson, H.H.; Li, X. Consumer attitudes toward farm-animal welfare: The case of laying hens. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2013, 38, 418–434. [Google Scholar]
- Andersen, L.M. Animal Welfare and Eggs—Cheap Talk or Money on the Counter? J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 62, 565–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Monier-Dilhan, S. Food labels: Consumer’s information or consumer’s confusion. OCL 2018, 25, D202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Baltzer, K. Consumers’ willingness to pay for food quality—The case of eggs. Food Econ. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. C 2004, 1, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galán, B.L.; Gracia, A.; Barreiro-Hurle, J. What comes first, origin or production method? An investigation into the relative importance of different attributes in the demand for eggs. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 11, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naspetti, S.; Bodini, A. Consumer Perception of Local and Organic Products: Substitution or Complementary Goods? Int. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Sci. 2008, 3, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heng, Y.; Peterson, H.H. Interaction Effects among Labeled Attributes for Eggs in the United States. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2018, 30, 236–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Bernard, J.C.; Johnston, Z.A.; Messer, K.D.; Kaiser, H.M. Consumer preferences before and after a food safety scare: An experimental analysis of the 2010 egg recall. Food Policy 2017, 66, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Żakowska-Biemans, S.; Tekień, A. Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dahlhausen, J.L.; Rungie, C.; Roosen, J. Value of labeling credence attributes-common structures and individual preferences. Agric. Econ. 2018, 49, 741–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gangnat, I.D.M.; Mueller, S.; Kreuzer, M.; Messikommer, R.E.; Siegrist, M.; Visschers, V.H.M. Swiss consumers’ willingness to pay and attitudes regarding dual-purpose poultry and eggs. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 1089–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Teixeira, D.L.; Larraín, R.; Hötzel, M.J. Are views towards egg farming associated with Brazilian and Chilean egg consumers’ purchasing habits? PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0203867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commisson. Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32006R1924 (accessed on 12 February 2020).
- European Commission. Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare 2016. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/71348 (accessed on 24 August 2020).
- Asselin, A.M. Eggcentric Behavior—Consumer Characteristics That Demonstrate Greater Willingness to Pay for Functionality. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87, 1339–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gracia, A.; De-Magistris, T. Preferences for lamb meat: A choice experiment for Spanish consumers. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loureiro, M.L.; Umberger, W.J. A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy 2007, 32, 496–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Loo, E.J.; Caputo, V.; Nayga, R.M.; Meullenet, J.-F.; Ricke, S.C. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: Evidence from choice experiment. Food Qual. Preference 2011, 22, 603–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Uncles, M.D.; Ben-Akiva, M.; Lerman, S.R. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1987, 38, 370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behaviour. In Frontiers in Econometrics; Zarembka, P., Ed.; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Jaeger, S.R.; Rose, J.M. Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: A case study. Food Qual. Preference 2008, 19, 539–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.A.; Johnson, L.W. Applied Discrete-Choice Modelling; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Akinc, D.; Vandebroek, M. Comparing the performances of maximum simulated likelihood and hierarchical Bayesian estimation for mixed logit models. In Proceedings of the International Choice Modelling Conference 2017, Cape Town, South Africa, 3–5 April 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Rossi, P.E.; Allenby, G.M. Bayesian Statistics and Marketing. Mark. Sci. 2003, 22, 304–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossi, P.E.; Allenby, G.M.; McCulloch, R. Bayesian Statistics and Marketing; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W. (Vic) Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 23, 421–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swait, J. A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 1994, 1, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bech, M.; Gyrd-Hansen, R.; Gyrd-Hansen, D. Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2005, 14, 1079–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kruskal, W.H.; Wallis, W.A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1952, 47, 583–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Lagerkvist, C.J. Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on Genetically Modified Food-An Empirical Analysis Using Choice Experiments. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea04/20370.html (accessed on 24 August 2020).
- Heng, Y.; Peterson, H.H.; Li, X. Consumer responses to multiple and superfluous labels in the case of eggs. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2016, 47, 62–82. [Google Scholar]
- Bosworth, R.; Taylor, L.O. Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments: Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Bias on the Intensive and Extensive Margins of Choice? BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2012, 12, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, F.; Frykblom, P.; Lagerkvist, C.-J. Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments. Econ. Lett. 2005, 89, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- ChoiceMetrics, Ngene. 1.2 User Manual & Reference Guide, Australia. Available online: http://www.choice-metrics.com (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Bethlehem, J. Selection Bias in Web Surveys. Int. Stat. Rev. 2010, 78, 161–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hole, A.R. Modelling heterogeneity in patients’ preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment. J. Health Econ. 2008, 27, 1078–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ditlevsen, K.; Denver, S.; Christensen, T.; Lassen, J. A taste for locally produced food—Values, opinions and sociodemographic differences among ‘organic’ and ‘conventional’ consumers. Appetite 2020, 147, 104544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nocella, G.; Kennedy, O. Food health claims—What consumers understand. Food Policy 2012, 37, 571–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menozzi, D.; Nguyen, T.T.; Sogari, G.; Taskov, D.; Lucas, S.; Santiago Castro-Rial, J.L.; Mora, C. Consumers’ willingness to pay for fish products with health and environmental labels: Evidence from five European countries. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 2014, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; Declerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Afshin, A.; Peñalvo, J.L.; Del Gobbo, L.; Silva, J.; Michaelson, M.; O’Flaherty, M.; Capewell, S.; Spiegelman, N.; Danaei, G.; Mozaffarian, D. The prospective impact of food pricing on improving dietary consumption: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Niebylski, M.L.; Redburn, K.A.; Duhaney, T.; Campbell, N.R. Healthy food subsidies and unhealthy food taxation: A systematic review of the evidence. Nutrition 2015, 31, 787–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scarpa, R.; Zanoli, R.; Bruschi, V.; Naspetti, S. Inferred and Stated Attribute Non-attendance in Food Choice Experiments. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2012, 95, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country | Attributes and Respective Levels |
---|---|
Hungary |
|
Italy |
|
Hungary | Italy | All | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample | Nat. Avg. a | Sample | Nat. Avg. | ||
Valid N | 403 | 404 | 807 | ||
Gender | |||||
Female (%) | 49.6 | 52.5 | 52.2 | 51.3 | 50.9 |
Male (%) | 50.4 | 47.5 | 47.8 | 48.7 | 49.1 |
Average age | 42.2 | 41.4 | 43.2 | 44.9 | 42.7 |
Living area | |||||
Rural area (%) | 15.4 | 30.5 | 13.9 | 24.3 | 14.6 |
Urban medium town (%) | 37.5 | 34.4 | 45.3 | 42.4 | 41.4 |
City (%) | 47.1 | 35.1 | 40.8 | 33.3 | 44.0 |
Education | |||||
Lower secondary/primary education or below (%) | 1.7 | 4.9 | 6.9 | 39.9 | 4.3 |
Upper secondary education (%) | 31.3 | 48.1 | 39.9 | 41.5 | 35.6 |
University or college entrance qualification (%) | 24.6 | 30.1 | 17.3 | 0.9 | 20.9 |
Bachelor’s degree or equivalent level (%) | 26.1 | 10.1 | 13.4 | 3.6 | 19.7 |
Master, Postgraduate or doctoral degree (%) | 16.4 | 6.8 | 22.5 | 14.1 | 19.5 |
Household monthly net income | 222,000 HUF | EUR 2616 | |||
(HU) < 150,000 HUF (c.a. EUR 486)/(IT) < EUR 900 (%) | 10.2 | 5.9 | 8.1 | ||
(HU) 150,001–205,000 HUF (c.a. EUR 487–EUR 664) /(IT) EUR 900–EUR 1,500 (%) | 14.9 | 20.8 | 17.8 | ||
(HU) 205,001–235,000 HUF (c.a. EUR 665–EUR 761) /(IT) EUR 1501–EUR 2500 (%) | 9.4 | 28.7 | 19.1 | ||
(HU) 235,001–380,000 HUF (c.a. EUR 762–EUR 1231) /(IT) EUR 2501–EUR 3500 (%) | 31.0 | 18.3 | 24.7 | ||
(HU) 380,001–835,000 HUF (EUR 1232–EUR 2705) /(IT) EUR 3501–EUR 4500 (%) | 25.3 | 9.2 | 17.2 | ||
(HU) ≥ 835,001 HUF (c.a. EUR 2706)/(IT) ≥ EUR 4501 (%) | 2.7 | 3.2 | 3.0 | ||
Prefer not to answer (%) | 6.5 | 13.9 | 10.2 | ||
Household size | 2.96 | 2.86 | 2.94 | 2.40 | 2.95 |
Number of children (<18 year) in a household | 0.59 | 1.06 | 0.54 | 0.50 | 0.56 |
Country | Hungary | Italy |
---|---|---|
N | 403 | 404 |
Avg. Imprt. (S.D.) | Avg. Imprt. (S.D.) | |
Organic labels | 17.34 (12.23) | 17.17 (12.63) |
Nutrition and health claims | 23.87 (15.70) | 29.82 (17.00) |
Price | 58.79 (21.61) | 53.01 (22.78) |
Country | Hungary | Italy |
---|---|---|
N | 403 | 404 |
Null Log-likelihood | −3352.05 | −3360.37 |
Restricted Log-likelihood | −2538.72 | −2447.81 |
AIC | 5091.45 | 4909.63 |
BIC | 5119.44 | 4937.62 |
McFadden Pseudo R2 | 0.24 | 0.27 |
Avg. Utilities (S.D.) | Avg. Utilities (S.D.) | |
Organic labels | ||
No label | −14.48 (32.54 ***) | −21.54 (23.58 ***) |
EU organic | 0.34 (19.47 ***) | 2.53 (14.49 **) |
EU organic + national organic | 14.13 (20.38 ***) | 19.01 (24.49 ***) |
Nutrition and health claims | ||
No-claim | −24.04 (42.32 ***) | −32.36 (44.58 ***) |
Nutrition claim | 10.05 (21.78 ***) | 5.30 (23.01 ***) |
Nutrition and health claim | 13.99 (30.52 ***) | 27.06 (37.24 ***) |
Price | ||
−54.12 (31.56 ***) | −47.20 (33.21 ***) | |
Constant | −190.80 (194.06 ***) | −160.75 (181.33 ***) |
Number of Groups | Log-Likelihood | AIC | BIC | Chi-Square | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hungary (N = 403) | 2 | −2203.38 | 4432.75 | 4508.03 | 2297.37 |
3 | −2037.72 | 4115.44 | 4231.26 | 2628.67 | |
4 | −1954.10 | 3962.20 | 4118.54 | 2795.92 | |
5 | −1930.24 | 3928.49 | 4125.37 | 2843.63 | |
Italy (N = 440) | 2 | −2280.17 | 4586.34 | 4661.65 | 2160.41 |
3 | −2097.40 | 4234.80 | 4350.66 | 2525.96 | |
4 | −2026.22 | 4106.43 | 4262.85 | 2668.32 | |
5 | −1989.34 | 4046.68 | 4243.65 | 2742.07 |
Hungary | Italy | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | 403 | 404 | ||||||||||
Null log-likelihood | −3352.05 | −3360.37 | ||||||||||
Restricted log-likelihood | −2037.72 | −2097.39 | ||||||||||
AIC | 4115.44 | 4234.80 | ||||||||||
BIC | 4231.26 | 4350.66 | ||||||||||
Chi-Square | 2628.67 | 2525.95 | ||||||||||
Group 1 Health Conscious Buyers | Group 2 Price Sensitive and Quality Optimizing Opportunist Consumers | Group 3 Unlabelled Eggs Seekers | Group 1 Health Conscious Buyers | Group 2 Price Sensitive Consumers | Group 3 Clean Labelling Consumers | |||||||
Group size | 46.4% | 45.6% | 8.0% | 49.0% | 39.5% | 11.6% | ||||||
Relat. Imprt. (%) | Part-worth utilities (t-stat.) | Relat. Imprt. (%) | Part-worth utilities (t-stat.) | Relat. Imprt. (%) | Part-worth utilities (t-stat.) | Relat. Imprt. (%) | Part-worth utilities (t-stat.) | Relat. Imprt. (%) | Part-worth utilities (t-stat.) | Relat. Imprt. (%) | Part-worth utilities (t-stat.) | |
Organic labels | 20.30 | 9.70 | 21.85 | 23.86 | 4.59 | 19.82 | ||||||
No label | −25.48 *** (−3.08) | −18.82 *** (−7.02) | 35.49 *** (2.99) | −33.51 *** (−6.90) | −8.78 *** (−3.11) | −33.26 *** (−2.60) | ||||||
EU organic | −9.95 (−1.09) | 10.28 *** (3.49) | −30.07 * (−2.03) | −4.58 (0.88) | 5.00 (1.55) | 26.20 * (2.18) | ||||||
EU organic and national organic | 35.43 *** (4.50) | 8.54 *** (3.32) | −5.42 (−0.40) | 38.09 *** (8.95) | 3.79 (1.32) | 7.06 (0.56) | ||||||
Nutrition and health claims | 31.40 | 14.69 | 13.88 | 45.91 | 16.08 | 56.32 | ||||||
No-claim | −54.78 *** (−6.30) | −24.85 *** (7.90) | 15.24 (1.23) | −76.23 *** (−13.32) | −27.99 *** (−8.09) | 110.70 *** (9.72) | ||||||
Nutrition claim | 15.37 (1.78) | 5.64 * (1.98) | 11.14 (0.87) | 14.74 *** (2.98) | 7.72 ** (2.43) | −58.26 *** (−3.75) | ||||||
Nutrition and health claim | 39.41 *** (5.11) | 19.21 *** (7.01) | −26.39 (−1.89) | 61.49 *** (14.75) | 20.27 *** (6.69) | −52.44 *** (−3.39) | ||||||
Price | 48.30 | −48.30 *** (-9.60) | 75.61 | −75.61 *** (18.41) | 64.27 | −64.27 *** (5.89) | 30.23 | −30.23 *** (−10.53) | 79.32 | −79.32 *** (−18.53) | 23.86 | −23.86 *** (−3.16) |
Constant | −475.76 *** (−12.63) | −39.90 *** (4.87) | 161.25 *** (0.97) | −264.96 *** (−11.46) | −11.32 (−1.82) | 90.35 *** (6.61) |
Country | Hungary | Italy | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | 403 | 404 | ||||
Segment label | Group 1 Health Conscious Buyers | Group 2 Price Sensitive and Quality Optimizing Opportunist Consumers | Group 3 Unlabelled Eggs Seekers | Group 1 Health Conscious Buyers | Group 2 Price Sensitive Consumers | Group 3 Clean Labelling Consumers |
Segment size | 46.40% | 45.60% | 8.00% | 49.00% | 39.50% | 11.60% |
WTP | WTP | WTP | WTP | WTP | WTP | |
Organic labels | ||||||
No label | −1.06 *** | −0.50 *** | 1.10 *** | −2.22 *** | −0.22 *** | −2.79 *** |
EU organic | −0.41 | 0.27 *** | −0.94 * | −0.30 | 0.13 | 2.20 * |
EU organic and national organic | 1.47 *** | 0.23 *** | −0.17 | 2.52 *** | 0.10 | 0.59 |
Nutrition and health claims | ||||||
No-claim | −2.27 *** | −0.66 *** | 0.47 | −5.04 *** | −0.71 *** | 9.28 *** |
Nutrition claim | 0.64 | 0.15 * | 0.35 | 0.98 *** | 0.19 ** | −4.88 *** |
Nutrition and health claim | 1.63 *** | 0.51 *** | −0.82 | 4.07 *** | 0.51 *** | −4.40 *** |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yeh, C.-H.; Menozzi, D.; Török, Á. Eliciting Egg Consumer Preferences for Organic Labels and Omega 3 Claims in Italy and Hungary. Foods 2020, 9, 1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091212
Yeh C-H, Menozzi D, Török Á. Eliciting Egg Consumer Preferences for Organic Labels and Omega 3 Claims in Italy and Hungary. Foods. 2020; 9(9):1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091212
Chicago/Turabian StyleYeh, Ching-Hua, Davide Menozzi, and Áron Török. 2020. "Eliciting Egg Consumer Preferences for Organic Labels and Omega 3 Claims in Italy and Hungary" Foods 9, no. 9: 1212. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091212