4.7 Article

Chinese urban consumers' preferences for white shrimp: Interactions between organic labels and traceable information

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 521, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735047

关键词

Aquatic product safety; Willingness to pay; Choice experiment; Generalised mixed logit model; White shrimp

资金

  1. Social Science Foundation of China [18BJY153]
  2. Nature Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2017MG018]
  3. Science and technology suppory plan for outstanding youth innovation team of colleges in Shandong Province [2019RWG009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Organic certification and traceable information systems are important ways to alleviate information asymmetry and to improve food safety levels. In this study, 996 consumers in China's Shandong Province were surveyed about their preference for white shrimp (slang for Litopenaeus vannamei) in a choice experiment that varied three product attributes: organic labels, traceable information and price. Using a generalised mixed logit model, the results revealed that, compared to conventional white shrimp, consumers preferred white shrimp with organic labels and/or traceable information. Provision of organic and traceable knowledge generally improves consumer willingness to pay (WTP) but weakens the complementary relationship between an organic label and traceable information. In fact, it can turn the complementary relationship between European Union (EU) organic labels and traceable information into the substitution relationship. In the Chinese market, introducing EU organic certification and providing knowledge introduction increase average total consumer WTP by 84.06% and 120.16%, on an average, respectively. These conclusions provide a reference for relevant organic certification policies and traceable food system management by the Chinese government, in addition to providing a reference for business decision-making by aquatic product suppliers and certification service providers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据