Click here to download

Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness-To-Pay for Misfit Vegetables
Journal Title: ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE 
Author/s: Marcello Di Muro, Rungsaran Wongprawmas, Maurizio Canavari 
Year:  2016 Issue: Language: English 
Pages:  22 Pg. 133-154 FullText PDF:  217 KB
DOI:  10.3280/ECAG2016-002003
(DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation:  clicca qui   and here 


Food retailers are accustomed not to offer the so-called "Misfits", that is fruits and vegetables whose appearance do not meet the best visual quality standards. This is due to the assumption that consumers only prefer fruits and vegetables with perfect appeal, which ultimately contribute towards the global, food waste bad tendencies. Therefore, it is important to understand consumers’ acceptance of the pricing possibilities for misfits. This aspect inspired the current study, which is aimed to investigate whether consumers could accept or reject misfit vegetables if there were any possibility of choosing such produce. A sample of 200 consumers was surveyed in Bologna, Italy, in June 2014 using a choice experiment approach and fresh carrots as the product of interest. Data were analysed using both Multinomial Logit (mnl) and Random Parameter Logit (rpl) models. The results suggest that appearance actually influenced consumer preferences for fresh carrots, on the basis of deformation as well as irregularity in terms of size, reducing the probability to purchase. However, consumers were showing more tolerance for irregular sized carrots compared to deformed ones. In addition, misfits were more accepted by consumers purchasing fresh fruits and vegetables at fresh food market compared to supermarket customers.
Keywords: Food Waste, Misfits, Choice Experiment, Willingness-To-Pay, Italy
Jel Code: M13, Q13

  1. Adamowicz, W., Boxall, P., Williams, M. & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(1), 64-75., DOI: 10.2307/3180269
  2. Atanasoaie, G. (2011). Who is the Consumer of Organic Food Products? Agricultura, agricultural practice and science journal, 2(1), 108-113.
  3. Becker, T. (1999). The economics of food quality standards, The 2nd interdisciplinary workshop on standardization research, May 24-27, 1999, University of Federal Armed Forces, Hamburg, Germany (pp. 1-35).
  4. Boccaletti, S. & Moro, D. (2000). Consumer willingness-to-pay for GM food products in Italy. AgBioForum, 3(4), 259-267.
  5. Brunso, K., Ahle Fjord, T. & Grunert, K.G. (2002). Consumers’ food choice and quality perception. MAPP working paper 77. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business.
  6. Carson, R., Louviere, J. & Anderson, D. (1994). Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters, 5(4), 351-367., DOI: 10.1007/BF00999210
  7. Creusen, M.E.H. & Schoormans, J.P.L. (2005). The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63-81.
  8. fao (2011). Global food losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  9. fao (2013). Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources. Summary Report. Food wastage footprint Impacts on natural resources. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  10. Frewer, L.J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D. & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determines trust in information about food-related risks? Underlying psychological constructs. Risk Analysis: An Official Publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 16(4), 473- 86.
  11. Frieling, D., Stricks, V., Wildenberg, M. & Schneider, F. (2013). The Beauty and the Beast – How Quality Management Criteria at Supermarkets Create Food Waste. The 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Management – lcm 2013, August 25-28, 2013, Gothenburg, Sweden (pp. 2011-2014).
  12. Gamble, J., Jaeger, S.R. & Harker, F.R. (2006). Preferences in pear appearance and response to novelty among Australian and New Zealand consumers. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 41(1), 38-47.
  13. Gao, Z. & Schroeder, T.C. (2009). Effects of Label Information on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Food Attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91 (3), 795-809.
  14. Gracia, A. & De Magistris, T. (2007). Organic food product purchase behaviour: a pilot study for urban consumers in the South of Italy. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(4), 439-451.
  15. Haws, K., Winterich, K.P. & Naylor, R.W. (2014). Seeing the world through greentinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336-354.
  16. Jaeger, S.R. & Rose, J.M. (2008). Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: A case study. Food Quality and Preference, 19(6), 539-564.
  17. Kader, A.A. (2005). Increasing Food Availability by Reducing Postharvest Losses of Fresh Produce. SHS Acta Horticulturae, 682, 2169-2176.
  18. Kays, S.J. (1999). Preharvest factors affecting appearance. Postharvest Biology and Technology 15(3), 233-247., DOI: 10.1016/S0925-5214(98)00088-X
  19. Kemp, K., Insch, A., Holdsworth, D.K. & Knight, J.G. (2010). Food miles: Do UK consumers actually care? Food Policy, 35(6), 504-513.
  20. Lancaster, K. (1966). A New Approach to Consumer Theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
  21. Loebnitz, N. (2015). Who Buys Oddly Shaped Food and Why? Impacts of Food Shape Abnormality and Organic Labeling on Purchase Intentions. Psychology & Marketing, 32(April), 408-421.
  22. Loebnitz, N. & Grunert, K.G. (2015). The effect of food shape abnormality on purchase intentions in China. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 24-30.
  23. Loureiro, M.L. & Umberger, W.J. (2007). A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, countryof-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy, 32(4), 496-514.
  24. Lusk, J. & Schroeder, T. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2), 467-482.
  25. Mann, H.B. & Whitney, D.R. (1947). On a Test of Whether One of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger Than the Other. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50-60.
  26. McFadden, D. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics (pp. 105-142). New York: Academic Press.
  27. Midgley, J.L. (2013). The logics of surplus food redistribution. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(12), 1872-1892., DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2013.848192
  28. Moser, R., Raffaellib, R., Thilmany-McFadden, D. (2011). Consumer Preferences for Fruit and Vegetables with Credence-Based Attributes: A Review. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14(2), 121-142.
  29. Nelson, P. (1974). Information and Consumer Behavior, Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311-329.
  30. Olson, J.C. (1977). Inferential Belief Formation in the Cue Utilization Process. Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 706-713. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065-81.
  31. Ragaert, P., Verbeke, W., Devlieghere, F. & Debevere, J. (2004). Consumer perception and choice of minimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits. Food Quality and Preference, 15(3), 259-270., DOI: 10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00066-1
  32. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M. & Marangon, F. (2008). Using flexible taste distributions to value collective reputation for environmentally-friendly production methods. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(2), 145-162.
  33. Shewfelt, R.L. & Bruckner, B. (2000). Fruit and Vegetable Quality: An Integrated View. London: Taylor & Francis.
  34. Silva, A., Nayga, R.M., Campbell, B.L. and Park, J.L. (2011). Revisiting Cheap Talk with New Evidence from Field Experiment. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 36(2): 280-291.
  35. Steg, L. & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(3), 309-317.
  36. Stuart, T. (2009). Waste: Uncovering the Global Food Scandal. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
  37. Tan, S. (2000). Determinants of eating quality in fruit and vegetables. Proceedings-Nutrition Society of Australia, 24, 183-190., DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-112
  38. Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34(4), 273-286.
  39. Train, K. (2009). Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Zeithaml, V. (1988). Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value - A Means-End Model and Snthesis of Evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22., DOI: 10.2307/1251446

Marcello Di Muro, Rungsaran Wongprawmas, Maurizio Canavari, in "ECONOMIA AGRO-ALIMENTARE" 2/2016, pp. 133-154, DOI:10.3280/ECAG2016-002003

   

FrancoAngeli is a member of Publishers International Linking Association a not for profit orgasnization wich runs the CrossRef service, enabing links to and from online scholarly content