Comparing hypothetical versus non-hypothetical methods for measuring willingness to pay in a food context
Abstract
Choosing a valid procedure to measure willingness to pay (WTP) is crucial for designating optimum price policies or for evaluating the demand for new products. This study compares two methods for obtaining WTP in a food context: a random nth price auction and an open-ended contingent valuation (CV) question. Participants were regular salad tomato buyers of Alicante and they were randomly assigned to one of the two treatments. The products about which they would show their WTP were traditional tomato varieties. Both treatments were divided into three stages: in the first stage the only available information was a reference price for the tomatoes. In stages 2 and 3 we revealed the local origin and the organic grown of the tomatoes respectively. Our results show that in the auction the percentage of participants willing to pay the same or more than the reference price was between 20 and 30%. In the CV method this percentage was between 40 and 65%. The mean WTP in the auction, considering the whole of the individuals, was situated between 1.90 and 2.13 €/kg. These same results obtained through the CV were situated between 2.54 and 3.21 €/kg. The results confirmed the findings of previous papers in which the hypothetical bias of CV was clarified because it yields higher values for WTP than the auction, especially when referring to the number of individuals willing to pay more. Additionally, hedonic price models were estimated for the prices obtained by both methods with the result that in all the models, WTP was directly related to the price paid for the latest purchase of tomatoes.
Downloads
References
Adamowick W, Louviere J, Williams M, 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J Environ Econ Manage 26: 271-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1994.1017
Alfnes F, Rickertsen K, 2003. European consumers' willingness to pay for U.S. beef in experimental auction markets. Am J Agr Econ 85 (2): 396-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.t01-1-00128
Bailey K, 1994. Methods of Social Research. 4th Edition. The Free Press. New York.
Bateman IJ, Turner RK, 1993. Valuation of environment, methods and techniques: the contingent valuation method. In: Sustainable environmental economics and management: principles and practice; Kerry Turner R (ed). pp: 91-120. Belhaven Press: London.
Batte MT, Hooker N, Haab T, Beaverson, J, 2007. Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products. Food Policy 32 (2): 145-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.05.003
Blumenschein K, Johannesson M, Blomquist G C, Liljas B, O'Conor RM, 1998. Experimental results on expressed certainty and hypothetical bias in contingent valuation. Southern Econ J 656 (1): 169-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1061360
Brugarolas M, Martínez-Carrasco L, Martínez-Poveda A, Ruiz JJ, 2009. A competitive strategy for vegetable products: traditional varieties of tomato in the local market. Span J Agric Res 7(2): 294-304. http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2009072-420
Burchardi H, Schröder C, Thiele HD, 2005. Willingness-to-pay for food of the own region: empirical estimates from hypothetical and incentive compatible settings. American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Providence, RI, USA, July 24-27.
Buzby J, Skees J, Ready R, 1995. Using contingent valuation to value food safety: a case study of grapefruit and pesticide residues. In: Valuing food safety and nutrition; Caswell JA (ed), pp: 219-256. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA.
Chen M, Yin S, Xu Y, Wang Z´, 2015. Consumers' willingness to pay for tomatoes carrying different organic labels: Evidence from auction experiments. Brit Food J 117(11). http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0415
Cummings RG, Brookshire DS, Schulze WD (eds.), 1986. Valuing environmental goods: a state of the arts assessment of the contingent valuation method. Rowman and Allanheld. Totowa, NJ, USA. 326 p.
De Groote H, Kimenju SC, Morawetz UB, 2011. Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya. Agr Econ 42(1): 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00466.x
Depositario, DPT, Nayga RM, Zhang YY, Mariano, RDE, 2014. Revisiting cash endowment and house money effects in an experimental auction of a novel agri-food product in the Philippines. Asian Econ J 28(2): 201-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/asej.12033
Ding M, Grewal R, Liechty J, 2005. Incentive-aligned conjoint analysis. J Mark Res 42(1): 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.67.56890
Elbakidze L, Nayga R M, Li H, 2013. Willingness to pay for multiple quantities of animal welfare dairy products: results from random nth-, second-price, and incremental second-price auctions. Can J Agr Econ 61: 417-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01263.x
Gabrielyan G, McCluskey JJ, Marsh TL, Ross CF, 2014. Willingness to pay for sensory attributes in beer. Agric Res Econ Rev 43(1): 125-139.
Grunert KG, Juhl H, Esbjerg L, Jensen BB, Bech-Larsen T, Brunsø K, Madsen CO, 2009. Comparing methods for measuring consumer willingness to pay for a basic and an improved ready made soup product. Food Qual Prefer 20: 607-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.07.006
Hausman J, 2012. Contingent valuation: fromo dubious to hopeless. J Econ Perspect 26 (4): 43-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.43
Herriges JA, Shogren JF, 1996. Starting point bias in dichotomous choice valuation with follow-up questioning. J Environ Econ Manag 30: 112-131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeem.1996.0008
Huang CL, Lin BH, 2007. A hedonic analysis of fresh tomato prices among regional markets. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 29(4): 783-800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2007.00387.x
Jaeger SR, Lusk JL, House LO, Valli C, Moore M, Morrow B, Traill W.B, 2004. The use of non-hypothetical experimental markets for measuring the acceptance of genetically modified foods. Food Qual Prefer 15 (7-8): 701-714. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.002
Johannesson M, Liljas B, O'Conor RM, 1997. Hypothetical versus real willingness to pay: Some experimental results. Appl Econ Lett 4: 149-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135048597355401
Kagel JH, Levin D, 1993. Independent private value auctions: Bidder behavior in first-, second- and third-price auctions with varying numbers of bidders. Econ J 103: 868-879. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2234706
Kalish S, Nelson P, 1991. A comparison of ranking, rating and reservation price measurement in conjoint analysis. Market Lett 2(4): 327-335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00664219
Kaneko N, Chern WS, 2004. Willingness to pay for non-genetically modified food: Evidence of hypothetical bias from an auction experiment in Japan. In: American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, USA. Aug 1-4. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/20305/1/sp04ka04.pdf
Lange C, Combris P, Issanchou S, Schlich P, 2015. Impact of information and in-home sensory exposure on liking and willingness to pay: The beginning of Fairtrade labeled coffee in France. Food Res Int 76 (3): 317-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.06.017
Lee K, Hatcher CB, 2001. Willingness to pay for information: an analyst's guide. J Consum Aff 35(1): 120-140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2001.tb00105.x
Lim KH, Hu W, Maynard LJ, Goddard E (2013). US consumers' preference and willingness to pay for country-of-origin-labeled beef steak and food safety enhancements. Can J Agr Econ 61(1): 93-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01260.x
List JA, 2003. Using random n-th price auctions to value non-market goods and services. J Regul Econ 23 (2): 193-205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022259014448
List JA, Gallet CA, 2001. What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Resourc Econ 20: 241-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012791822804
Loureiro ML, Hine S, 2002. Discovering niche markets: A comparison of consumer willingness to pay for local (Colorado grown), organic, and GMO-free products. J Agric App Econ 34 (3): 477-488.
Lusk JL, Feldkamp T, Schroeder TC, 2004. Experimental auction procedure: impact on valuation of quality differentiated goods. Am J Agr Econ 86 (2): 389-405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00586.x
Martínez-Carrasco L, Vidal F, Poole N, 2006. Evaluación de preferencias hacia las mandarinas en el mercado británico. Aplicación de las subastas Vickrey. Econ Agrar Recur Nat 6 (11): 157-175.
McConnell KE, Strand IE, 2000. Hedonic prices for fish: tuna prices in Hawaii. Am J Agr Econ 82(1): 133-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0002-9092.00011
MECD, 2013. Panorama de la educación. Indicadores de la OCDE 2013. Panorama español. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Gobierno de España. http://www.mecd.gob.es/inee.
Melton BE, Huffman WE, Shogren JF, 1996. Economic values of pork attributes: Hedonic price analysis of experimental auction data. Rev Agr Econ 18: 613-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1349594
Mesías F J, Martínez-Carrasco F, Martínez Paz JM, Gaspar P, 2012. Consumer knowledge, consumption, and willingness to pay for organic tomatoes. Brit Food J 114(3): 318-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070701211213447
Miller KM, Hofstetter R, Krohmer H, Zhang ZJ, 2011. How should consumers' willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. J Mark Res XLVIII: 172-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.1.172
Mitchell R, Carson R, 1989. Using surveys to value public goods. The contingent valuation method. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Murphy J, Allen G, Stevens T, Weatherhead D. 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ Res Econ 30: 313-325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-004-3332-z
Neill HR, Cummings RG, Ganderton PT, Harrison GW, McGuckin T, 1994. Hypothetical surveys, provision rules, and real economics commitments. Land Econ 70: 145-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3146318
Noussair C, Robin S, Bernard R, 2004. A comparison of hedonic rating and demand-revealing auctions. Food Qual Prefer 15: 393-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00086-7
Pomarici E, Vecchio R, 2014. Expoloring factors effecting willingness-to-pay for sustainable wine through hypothetical and non-hypothetical experimental auctions. Proc. 50th SIDEA Conf., Sustainability of the Agri-Food System: Strategies and Performances. Lecce, Chiostro dei Domenicani, 26-28 September.
Poole N, Martinez-Carrasco L, Vidal F, 2007. Quality perceptions under evolving information conditions: Implications for diet, health and consumer satisfaction. Food Policy 32: 175-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.05.004
Silva A, Nayga Jr RM, Campbell BL, Park J, 2007. On the use of valuation mechanisms to measure consumers' willingness to pay for novel products: A comparison of hypothetical and non-hypothetical values. Int Food Agribus Man 10(2): 165-180.
Shogren JF, Margolis M, Koo C, List JA, 2001. A random nth-price auction. J Econ Behav Organ 46: 409-421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(01)00165-2
Umberger W, Feu D, Calkins C, Killinger-Mann K, 2002. U.S. consumer preference and willingness-to-pay for domestic corn-fed beef versus international grass-fed beef measured through an experimental auction. Agribusiness 18 (4): 491-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agr.10034
Vecchio R, Annunziata A, 2015. Willingness-to-pay for sustainability-labelled chocolate: an experimental auction approach. J Clean Prod 86: 335-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.006
Verbeke W, Rutsaert P, Bonne K, Vermeir I, 2013. Credence quality coordination and consumers' willingness-to-pay for certified Halal labelled meat. Meat Sci 95(4): 790-797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.042
Voelckner F, 2006. An empirical comparison of methods for measuring consumers' willingness to pay. Mark Lett 17: 137-149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11002-006-5147-x
Weaver RD, Evans DJ, Luloff, A, 1992. Pesticide use in tomato production: consumer concerns and willingness to pay. Agribusiness 8 (2): 131-142.
Wertenbroch K, Skiera B, 2002. Measuring consumers' willingness to pay at the point of purchase. J Mark Res 39: 228-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.2.228.19086
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the print and online versions of this journal are the property of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. You may read the basic information and the legal text of the licence. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 licence must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the final version of the work produced by the publisher, is not allowed.
