4.6 Article

Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su9111999

关键词

consumer; farming systems; eggs; preferences; free range; organic; animal welfare; nutrition claims; discrete choice-based experiment

资金

  1. European Union

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main purpose of this study was to determine the structure of consumer preferences regarding information on farming system and nutritional enhancement of eggs to verify if consumers are willing to accept products combing sustainability and nutrition related claims. The data was collected within a CAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interviews) survey on a representative sample of 935 consumers responsible for food shopping. A discrete choice-based conjoint method was selected in eliciting consumer preferences among different product profiles with varying levels of attributes. A hierarchical cluster analysis was used to identify four distinct clusters that differed significantly in terms of importance attached to production system attributes and socio-demographic profiles. The results of the experiment showed that price and farming system had the most significant mean relative importance in shaping consumers' preferences, while other attributes such as nutrition and health claims, egg size, package size and hen breed were far less important. Free range eggs had the highest relative importance for consumers despite the fact that organic egg production systems are governed by much stricter animal welfare standards. Our segmentation revealed that two of our four clusters may be more easily reached by information on animal welfare related attributes in egg production than the others. The results of our study provide the policy makers and marketing practitioners with insights applicable for communication and pricing strategies for eggs with sustainability claims.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据