Search

Credence attributes such as environmental impact, origin, fairness/unfairness, and food safety/health are not available with certainty prior to or at the time of the consumer purchase decision. This creates a problem of imperfect or asymmetric information, leading to suboptimal supply and demand for products with these desirable attributes. Using a representative sample of 2001 Canadian consumers, we adopt, within an attribute‐based decision‐making framework, the asymptotically efficient double‐bounded stated preference approach, to estimate Canadian consumers' willingness to pay for origin, fairness, environmental impact, and food safety attributes associated with pork chops and fresh apples. We find that, on average, consumers are willing to pay significantly more for pork chops and fresh apples that are farmers‐advantaged, sourced from their own province, grown or raised under a production system designed to be environmentally sustainable, and chemical‐free. However, these findings differ significantly by the province of origin, gender, age, and income of the respondents, as well as by product type and attributes being valued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We attempt to quantify and qualify the preferences of consumers for beef with a number of environmental and food quality attributes. Our goal is to evaluate the viability of a proposed food co-operative based in the Wood River watershed of southern Saskatchewan, Canada. The food co-operative was designed to provide a price premium to producers who adopted alternative management practices. In addition, the study evaluated the acceptance of a proposed food co-operative by consumer that had environmental interests as compared to the general population. Conjoint analysis was used to determine the trade-off and relative value of beef with the following production and purchasing characteristics: (a) use of hormones, antibiotics and vaccination in production; (b) method of obtaining the beef including monthly or yearly purchase contracts or a local market; (c) price relative to beef purchased from the local grocery store; and (d) impact on the river ecosystem. Consumers from environmental groups had stronger environmental and food quality preferences than individuals from the general population. However, consumers from both groups expressed a willingness to pay higher prices for food that had these attributes. It was uncertain whether the magnitude of the premium, in combination with a desire not to enter a long-term purchasing commitment, would be large enough to encourage farmers to adopt the alternative management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]