4.5 Article

The role of certificate issuer on consumers' willingness-to-pay for milk traceability in China

期刊

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
卷 44, 期 4-5, 页码 537-544

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/agec.12037

关键词

Certificate issuer; Food safety; Traceable milk; D12; Q18

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71003114, 71273009]
  2. Agricultural Food Research Initiative of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture/USDA [2010-65400-20489]
  3. Emerging Markets Program Agreement Commodity Credit Corporation/USDA [2010-27]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In response to increasing concerns about domestic food safety issues, establishing tracking systems in the food industry is mandatorily required under newly launched food safety laws. However, the kinds of monitoring and certification systems that should be set up to ensure practical adoption and the effectiveness of the regulation remain unclear. This study aims to analyze consumers' preferences for milk traceability, with particular interest in investigating how consumers' preferences could be affected by monitoring and certification systems of the regarding system. Survey data from a choice-based conjoint (CBC) experiment are used to achieve this objective. In the experiment, milk is defined by a set of attributes in which we assume that milk traceability can be certified by three entities: the government, an industrial association, and a third party. The CBC data are then analyzed by using the alternative-specific form of a conditional Logit (McFadden's Choice) model. We found that urban Chinese consumers have a strong desire for traceable milk, but their preference for traceable milk is significantly related to the associated certificate issuers. Currently, the highest willingness-to-pay goes to government certificated traceable milk, followed by industrial association certificated and third-party certificated milks. In the future, however, consumers are likely to give more credit to third-party certification with rising income and knowledge.

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

4.5
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