[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v47y1996i1-4p403-420.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Willingness To Pay For Reductions In The Risk Of Food Poisoning In The Uk

Author

Listed:
  • Spencer Henson
Abstract
The paper employs contingent valuation to estimate “willingness to pay” for reductions in the risk of food poisoning. The analysis accounts for the range of adverse health effects resulting from nonfatal cases of food poisoning as well as the risk of loss of life. A number of hypotheses regarding the value consumers attach to improvements in food safety are explored based on the results from a contingent valuation survey. Regression analysis is used to assess the factors influencing expressed “willingness to pay” for safer food, including demographic factors, personal experience of food poisoning and beliefs and attitudes about food‐borne risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Spencer Henson, 1996. "Consumer Willingness To Pay For Reductions In The Risk Of Food Poisoning In The Uk," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 403-420, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:47:y:1996:i:1-4:p:403-420
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1996.tb00701.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1996.tb00701.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1996.tb00701.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Willis, Cleve E. & Foster, John H., 1983. "The Hedonic Approach: No Panacea for Valuing Water Quality Changes," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 1-5.
    2. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1987. "An Investigation of the Rationality of Consumer Valuations of Multiple Health Risks," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(4), pages 465-479, Winter.
    3. Evans, William N & Viscusi, W Kip, 1991. "Estimation of State-Dependent Utility Functions Using Survey Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(1), pages 94-104, February.
    4. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
    5. Karni, Edi, 1983. "Risk Aversion for State-Dependent Utility Functions: Measurement and Applications," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 24(3), pages 637-647, October.
    6. Loehman, Edna & De, Vo Hu, 1982. "Application of Stochastic Choice Modeling to Policy Analysis of Public Goods: A Case Study of Air Quality Improvements," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 64(3), pages 474-480, August.
    7. David S. Brookshire & Larry S. Eubanks & Alan Randall, 1983. "Estimating Option Prices and Existence Values for Wildlife Resources," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(1), pages 1-15.
    8. Robert D. Weaver & David J. Evans & A. E. Luloff, 1992. "Pesticide use in tomato production: Consumer concerns and willingness-to-pay," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 131-142.
    9. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1986. "The Value of Avoiding a Lulu: Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(2), pages 293-299, May.
    10. Bergstrom, John C. & Dillman, B. L. & Stoll, John R., 1985. "Public Environmental Amenity Benefits of Private Land: The Case of Prime Agricultural Land," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 139-149, July.
    11. Milton C. Weinstein & Donald S. Shepard & Joseph S. Pliskin, 1980. "The Economic Value of Changing Mortality Probabilities: A Decision-Theoretic Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 94(2), pages 373-396.
    12. Jolly, Desmond A., 1991. "Differences Between Buyers and Nonbuyers of Organic Produce and Willingness to Pay Organic Price Premiums," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15.
    13. Misra, Sukant K. & Huang, Chung L. & Ott, Stephen L., 1991. "Consumer Willingness To Pay For Pesticide-Free Fresh Produce," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 16(2), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Willis, Cleve E. & Foster, John H., 1983. "The Hedonic Approach: No Panacea for Valuing Water Quality Changes," Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 12(1), pages 1-5.
    15. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & Hoehn, John P., 1991. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing Pesticide Residues in Food: Results of a Nationwide Survey," Staff Paper Series 201044, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    16. Stephen L. Ott, 1990. "Supermarket shoppers' pesticide concerns and willingness to purchase certified pesticide residue-free fresh produce," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(6), pages 593-602.
    17. Throsby, C D, 1984. "The Measurement of Willingness-to-Pay for Mixed Goods," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 46(4), pages 279-289, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van, 1993. "Research Needs in the Valuation of Food Safety and Nutrition," Staff Paper Series 201172, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    3. Tsu‐Tan Fu & Jin‐Tan Liu & James K. Hammitt, 1999. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Low‐Pesticide Fresh Produce in Taiwan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 220-233, May.
    4. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Maria Aguiar Fontes & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2014. "Crise sanitaires de l'alimentation et analyses comportementales," Working Papers hal-00949126, HAL.
    5. Maria Travisi, Chiara & Nijkamp, Peter & Vindigni, Gabriella, 2006. "Pesticide risk valuation in empirical economics: a comparative approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 455-474, April.
    6. Powers, Nicholas J. & Heifner, Richard G., 1993. "Federal Grade Standards for Fresh Produce: Linkages to Pesticide Use," Agricultural Information Bulletins 309690, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Cropper, Maureen L. & Haile, Mitiku & Lampietti, Julian & Poulos, Christine & Whittington, Dale, 2004. "The demand for a malaria vaccine: evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 303-318, October.
    8. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John & Adelaja, Adesoji O., 1998. "Predicting Consumer Risk Aversions to Synthetic Pesticide Residues: A Logistic Analysis," P Series 36740, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    9. Raymond J. G. M. Florax & Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2005. "A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(4), pages 441-467, December.
    10. Wier, Mette & O'Doherty Jensen, Katherine & Andersen, Laura Mørch & Millock, Katrin, 2008. "The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 406-421, October.
    11. Evans, William N & Viscusi, W Kip, 1991. "Estimation of State-Dependent Utility Functions Using Survey Data," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(1), pages 94-104, February.
    12. Biing-Hwan Lin & Steven Payson & Jane Wertz, 1996. "Opinions of professional buyers toward organic produce: A case study of mid-Atlantic market for fresh tomatoes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 89-97.
    13. Jelena Vapa-Tankosić & Svetlana Ignjatijević & Jelena Kiurski & Jovana Milenković & Irena Milojević, 2020. "Analysis of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Organic and Local Honey in Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-23, June.
    14. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2007:i:14:p:1-10 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Roosen, Jutta & Fox, John A. & Hennessy, David A. & Schreiber, Alan, 1998. "Consumers' Valuation Of Insecticide Use Restrictions: An Application To Apples," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-18, December.
    16. Jeffrey Wagner & Luiz Freitas, 2007. "Capturing moral economic context," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(14), pages 1-10.
    17. Govindasamy, Ramu & Italia, John, 1997. "Consumer Response to Integrated Pest Management and Organic Agriculture: An Econometric Analysis," P Series 36727, Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics.
    18. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    19. Lohr, Luanne & Park, Timothy A., 1992. "Certification And Supply Response In The Organic Lettuce Market," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 17(2), pages 1-13, December.
    20. repec:zib:zbseps:v:2:y:2022:2:1:p:44-52 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & McGuirk, Anya, 1992. "Consumer Perspectives on Crop Protection Technology Choice," Staff Paper Series 201158, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    22. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:47:y:1996:i:1-4:p:403-420. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.