Journal of Agricultural Economics
Original Article

Beef Credence Attributes: Implications of Substitution Effects on Consumers’ WTP

José Lima Santos
Magda Aguiar Fontes and Inês Viegas are both with the CIISA, Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Lisboa, Pólo universitário da Ajuda, Avenida da Universidade Técnica, 1300‐477 Lisbon, Portugal. E‐mail: magadaaguiar@fmv.ulisboa.pt for correspondence. Luís Catela Nunes is with the Nova School of Business and Economics, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. Lívia Madureira is with the Department of Economics, Sociology and Management, University of Trás‐os‐Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Vila Real, Portugal. José Lima Santos is with the Centro de Estudos Florestais (CEF) /Forest Studies Centre ‐ Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees and the Editor of JAE for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.Search for more papers by this author
First published: 12 May 2014
Cited by: 13
Get access to the full version of this article.View access options below.

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials.

If you have previously obtained access with your personal account, .

Abstract

Consumers’ food choices are influenced by a wide variety of credence attributes, but the food industry faces problems assessing whether the price premiums that consumers are willing to pay for these attributes will be sufficient to offset higher production costs. In this context, consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for safer, cleaner and animal friendlier beef was investigated through a choice experiment. The relative importance of WTP for these attributes shows that consumers place the highest values on food safety, followed by animal welfare and finally environmental protection. WTP for different combinations of the three attributes cannot be obtained by independent valuation and summation due to the presence of significant substitution relationships. However, some suggestions for the relationships between these attributes can be proposed through an after‐survey analytical solution. The bias involved in separately valuing closely related attributes can potentially jeopardise the success of a differentiation strategy.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.