Abstract

Research Article

Willingness to pay and sensory acceptability for minimally processed vegetables: behavior of consumers with different household incomes

Fernanda Gugole Ottaviano*, Soledad Arce and Miriam Sosa

Published: 03 May, 2022 | Volume 6 - Issue 1 | Pages: 016-025

Willingness to pay (WTP) and sensory acceptability for minimally processed (MP) vegetables were studied. A total of 116 participants of two different household incomes (HI) were considered. Two types of preparations (bags with whole vegetables and trays with MP vegetables), and two types of presentations (mix vegetables for soup and mix vegetables for salad), were evaluated. Low income (LI) participants offered more money in general than the medium-high income (MI) participants. However, the offers of the two preparations (soup and salad) did not show significant differences. The 4 samples (two preparations: soup and salad; and two presentations: bags and trays) had good sensory acceptability with values between 6.5 and 8.3, on a scale of 1-9. MI consumers had higher acceptability for mixed vegetables for soup than for salad vegetables; however, LI participants showed no difference between the types of preparation, observing for both samples (soup and salad) high acceptability. For both HI, Check All That Apply (CATA) questions showed that phrases such as “It is unreliable” and “I distrust how it was prepared” were associated with the trays, while the phrase “It takes time to prepare or cook” was associated with bags.

Read Full Article HTML DOI: 10.29328/journal.afns.1001033 Cite this Article Read Full Article PDF

Keywords:

Raw vegetables; Cooked vegetables; Second-price auctions

References

  1. Arce S, Gugole Ottaviano F, Sosa M. Sensory acceptability, consumption frequency, and factors associated with consumption of fruits and vegetables among low and medium income consumers in Argentina. J Sens Stud. 2020;36(2):1-13. DOI: 10.1111/joss.12632
  2. Hussein Z, Caleb OJ, Opara UL. Perforation-mediated modified atmosphere packaging of fresh and minimally processed produce—A review. Food Packag. 2015;6:7–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2015.08.003.
  3. Oms-Oliu G, Ma Alejandra Rojas-Graü MA, Laura Alandes González LA, Varela P, Soliva-Fortuny R, Hernando Hernando MI, Pérez Munuera I, Fiszman S, Martín-Belloso O. Recent approaches using chemical treatments to preserve quality of fresh-cut fruit: A review. Postharvest Biol Technol. 2010;57:139–148. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.04.001
  4. Siddiqui MW, Chakraborty I, Ayala-Zavala JF, Dhua RS. Advances in minimal processing of fruits and vegetables: a review. J Sci Ind Res. 2011;70:823-834.
  5. Ares G, Martínez I, Lareo C, Lema P. Failure criteria based on consumers’ rejection to determine the sensory shelf life of minimally processed lettuce. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 49(2), 255-259. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.02.006
  6. Parzanese M. Vegetales mínimamente procesados. Alimentos Argentinos, 2012, 55, 31-39.
  7. Finten G, Garrido JI, Agüero MV, Jagus RJ. Irradiated ready-to-eat spinach leaves: How information influences awareness towards irradiation treatment and consumer's purchase intention. Radiat Phys Chem. 2017;130:247–251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.radphyschem.2016.09.004
  8. Wilches R. Hortalizas frescas precortadas en la ciudad de Buenos Aires: estructuras de gobernancia, estrategias y tácticas asociadas. Estudio de casos múltiple. Tesis Magister de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, Área: Agronegocios y Alimentos. Buenos Aires, 2009.
  9. Sgroppo S, Montiel G. Estado actual del mercado de frutos y vegetales cortados en Argentina. Simposium Estado actual del mercado de frutos y vegetales cortados en Iberoamerica. San José Costa Rica. 2004.
  10. Reed J, Frazão E, Itskowitz R. How much do Americans pay for fruits and vegetables? Electronic Report from the USDA ERS. Agric Inf Bull. 2004;No.(AIB-790) 39.
  11. Quagrainie KK. IQF Catfish Retail Pack: A Study of Consumers’ Willingness to Pay. Int Food Agribus Manag 2006;9(2); 75-87.
  12. Hoffman E, Menkhaus DJ, Chakravarti D, Field RA, Whipple GD. Using Laboratory Experiment Auctions in Marketing Research: A Case Study of NewPackaging for Fresh Beef. Mark Sci. 1993;12(3);318-338. DOI: 10.1287/mksc.12.3.318
  13. Loureiro, M.L, Umberger, W.J. Estimating Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Country-of-Origin Labeling. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2002, 28, 287-301.
  14. Lusk JL, Alexander C, Rousu MC. Designing experimental auctions for marketing research: The effect of values, distributions, and mechanisms on incentives for truthful bidding. Rev Mark Sci. 2007;5(1); DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.20202
  15. McFadden JR, Huffman WE. Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products. Food Policy. 2017; 69: 82–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.03.002
  16. Grunert KG, Juhl HJ, Esbjerg L, Jensen BB, Bech-Larsen T, Brunsø K, Madsen CØ. Comparing methods for measuring consumer willingness to pay for a basic and an improved ready-made soup product. Food Qual Prefer. 2009; 2: 607–619. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.07.006
  17. Owusu V, Owusu Anifori M. Int Food Agribusiness. Manag Rev. 2013; 16(1): 67-86.
  18. Hou B, Wu L, Chen X, Zhu D, Ying R, Fu-Sheng T. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Foods with Traceability Information: Ex-Ante Quality Assurance or Ex-Post Traceability? Sustainability. 2019;11:1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051464
  19. Govindasamy, R, Italia, J. Predicting willingness-to-pay a premium for organically grown fresh produce. J. Food Distrib. Res. 1999;30(2): 44-53. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.27385
  20. Petljak K, Renkoet S, Štulecal I. Consumers` willingness to pay more for organic food in Croatia. Ekonomski Vjesnik/Ekonviews. 2017;30:441-455.
  21. Gallardo RK, Kupferman E, Colonna, A. Willingness-to-pay for Optimal Anjou Pear Quality. Hor Sci. 2011; 46:452‒456. DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.46.3.452
  22. Zhang H, Gallardo RK, McCluskey J, Kupferman E. Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Treatment-Induced Quality Attributes in Anjou Pears. J Agr Resour Econ. 2010;35: 105‒117. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.61062
  23. Dinis I, Simoes O, Moreira J. Using sensory experiments to determine consumers’ WTP for traditional apple varieties. Span J Agric Res. 2011;9:351–362. DOI: 10.5424/sjar/20110902-133-10
  24. Bi X, House L, Gao Z, Gmitter F. Sensory evaluation and experimental auctions: measuring willingness to pay for specific sensory attributes. Am J Agric Econ. 2011; 94:562‒568. DOI: 10.1093/ajae/aar062
  25. Costanigro M, Kroll S, Thilmany D, Bunning M. Is it love for local/organic or hate for conventional? Asymmetric effects of information and taste on label preferences in an experimental auction. Food Qual Prefer, 2014, 31, 94‒105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.008
  26. Lim J. Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Qual Prefer. 2011;22:733‒747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.008
  27. Gallardo K, Hong YA, Jaimes MS, Orozco JF. Investigating consumer food choice behavior: an application combining sensory evaluation and experimental auctions. Cien Inv Agr. 2018;45:1-10. DOI: 10.7764/rcia.v45i1.1765
  28. Hough G, Ferraris D. Free listing: A method to gain initial insight of a food category. Food Qual Pref. 2010; 21: 295–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.04.001
  29. Alfnes F. Willingness to Pay versus Expected Consumption Value in Vickrey Auctions for New Experience Goods. Am J Agri Eco. 2007; 89(4):921-931. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01028.x
  30. Lusk JL, Roosen J, Fox JA. Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Am J. Agric. Econ. 2003, 85, 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00100
  31. Fox CR, Tversky A. Ambiguity Aversion and Comparative Ignorance. Q J Econ. 1995;110:585–603.
  32. Fox JA, Hayes DJ, Shogren JF, Kliebenstein JB. Experimental Methods in Consumer Preference Studies. J Food Distrib Res. 1996;2-7.
  33. Código Alimentario Argentino (CAA). Capítulo IX. Alimentos farináceos – cereales, harinas y derivados (artículo 761bis Resolución conjunta 196/2001 y 1020/2001). 2004.
  34. Mc Ewan J. Cluster analysis and preference mapping. Review No. 12. Project No. 29742. England: Campden Chorleywood. Food Research Association. 1998.
  35. Chen Q, Anders S, An H. Measuring consumer resistance to a new food technology: A choice experiment in meat packaging. Food Qual Pref. 2013; 28(2): 419-428. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.008
  36. Da Rosa Lopes M, Pereira FDAR, De Souza CC, Dos Reis Neto JF, Bono JAM. Perception of buyers in regards to the quality and food safety of minimally processed vegetables. Afr J Agric Res. 2015;10(28): 2717-2723.
  37. Liu Y, Zeng Y, Yu X. Consumer willingness to pay for food safety in Beijing: a case study of food additives. Int J Agric Econ. (IAAE). 2009;2-24. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.9737
  38. Darby K, Batte MT, Ernst S, Roe B. Decomposing local: A conjoint analysis of locally produced foods. Am J Agric Econ. 2008;90(2):476-486. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01111.x
  39. Voon JP, Ngui KS, Agrawal A. Determinants of willingness to purchase organic food: An exploratory study using structural equation modeling. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev. 2011;14(2);103-120.
  40. Gil JM, Soler F. Knowledge and willingness to pay for organic food in Spain: Evidence from experimental auctions. Acta Agric Scand C. 2006;3(3-4):109-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/16507540601127656
  41. Shogren JF, List JA, Hayes DJ. Preference Learning in Consecutive Experimental Auctions. Amer J Agr Econ. 2000; 82(4): 1016-1021. https://doi.org/10.1111/0002-9092.00099
  42. Pearson N, Biddle SJH, Gorely T. Family correlates of fruit and vegetable consumption in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2009;12(2):267-283. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980008002589
  43. Alaimo K, Packnett E, Miles RA, Kruger DJ. Fruit and vegetable intake among urban community gardeners. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2008;40(2);94-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2006.12.003
  44. Pollard J, Kirk SFL, Cade JE. Factors affecting food choice in relation to fruit and vegetable intake: a review. Nutr Res Rev. 2002;15(2):373-388.
  45. Brug J, Debie S, van Assema P, Weijts W. Psychosocial determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among adults. Results of focus group interviews. Food Qual Prefer. 1995;6(2):99–107.
  46. Marshall D, Anderson A, Lean M, Foster A. Healthy eating: fruit and vegetables in Scotland. Br Food J. 1994; 96(7): 18–24.
  47. Foley DM, Dufour A, Rodriguez L, Caporaso F, Prakash A. Reduction of Escherichia coli in shredded iceberg lettuce by chlorination and gamma irradiation. Radiat Phys Chem. 2002;63 (3): 391-396. DOI: 10.1016/S0969-806X(01)00530-8
  48. Luna Guzmán I, Barrett DM. Comparison of calcium chloride and calcium lactate effectiveness in maintaining shelf stability and quality of fresh-cut cantaloupes. Postharvest Biol Technol. 2000;19(1):61-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5214(00)00079-X
  49. Allende A, Artés F. UV-C radiation as a novel technique for keeping quality of fresh processed ‘lollo rosso’ lettuce. Food Res Int. 2003;36(7): 739-746. DOI: 10.1016/S0963-9969(03)00054-1
  50. Allende A, McEvoy JL, Luo Y, Artés F, Wang CY. Effectiveness of two-sided UV-C treatments in inhibiting natural microflora and extending the shelf-life of minimally processed ‘red oak leaf’ lettuce. Food Microbiol. 2006;23(3):241-249. doi:10.1016/j.fm.2005.04.009
  51. De Azeredo GA, Stamford TLM, Nunes PC, Gomes Neto NJ, De Oliveira MEG, De Souza EL. Combined application of essential oils from Origanum vulgare L. and Rosmarinus officinalis L. to inhibit bacteria and autochthonous microflora associated with minimally processed vegetables. Food Res Int. 2011;44(5): 1541-1548. doi: 10.1590/S1517-838220090002000032
  52. Vidal L, Ares G, Giménez A. Projective techniques to uncover consumer perception. Application of three methodologies to ready-to-eat salads. Food Qual Pref. 2013;28:1–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.005
  53. Nassivera F, Sillani S. Consumer perceptions and motivations in choice of minimally processed vegetables. A case study in Italy. Br Food J. 2015;117(3): 970-986. DOI 10.1108/BFJ-03-2014-0132
  54. Nunes NP, Martins CG, Behrens JH, Souza KLO, Genovese MI, Destro MT, Mariza Landgraf M. Radioresistance of Salmonella Species and Listeria monocytogenes on Minimally Processed Arugula (Eruca sativa Mill.): Effect of Irradiation on Flavonoid Content and Acceptability of Irradiated Produce. J Agric Food Chem. 2008;56(4): 1264-1268
    DOI: 10.1021/jf072873jDOI: 10.1021/jf072873j
  55. Bruhn CM. Enhancing consumer acceptance of new processing technologies. Innovative Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2007;8(4): 555-558.
  56. Artés, F, Gómez, P, Aguayo, E, Escalona, V, Artés-Hernández, F. Sustainable sanitation techniques for keeping quality and safety of fresh-cut plant commodities. Postharvest Biol. Technol 2009; 51(3): 287-296.
  57. Baselice A, Colantuoni F, Lass DA, Nardone G, Stasi A. Trends in EU Consumers’ Attitude Towards Fresh-cut Fruit and Vegetables. Food Qual Pref. 2017;59:87-96.http://
    doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.01.008
  58. Cardello AV, Schutz HG, Lesher LL. Consumer perceptions of foods processed by innovative and emerging technologies: A conjoint analysis study. Innov Food Sci Emerg 2007; 8: 73-83. doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2006.07.002
  59. Bertazzoli A, Buccioli N, Nocella G. Consumers perception and evaluation of fresh cut buying attributes: A survey on the Italian market. J Food Prod Mark. 2005;11(1): 35–55. org/10.1300/J038v11n01_03
  60. Ragaert P, Verbeke W, Devlieghere F, Debevere J. Consumer perception and choice of minimally processed vegetables and packaged fruits. Food Qual Pref. 2004;15: 259–270. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00066-1
  61. Behrens JH, Barcellos MN, Frewer LJ, Nunes TP, Franco BDGM, Destro MT. Consumer purchase habits and views on food safety: A Brazilian study. Food Control. 2010;21:963–969. doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.07.018
  62. Basurra RS, Tunung R, Kavita C, Ribka A, Chandrika M, Ubong A. Consumption practices and perception of ready-to-eat food among university students and employees in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Food Res. 2020;5:246-251.
  63. Ares G, Machín L, Girona A, Curutchet MR, Giménez A. Comparison of motives underlying food choice and barriers to healthy eating among low medium income consumers in Uruguay. Cad Saude Publica. 2017; 33(4): 1-12.
  64. Massaglia S, Danielle Borra D, Peano C, Sottile F, Merlino VM. Consumer Preference Heterogeneity Evaluation in Fruit and Vegetable Purchasing Decisions Using the Best–Worst Approach. 2019; 8: 266: 2-16. doi:10.3390/foods8110568

Figures:

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 1

Figure 3

Figure 1

Figure 4

Figure 1

Figure 5

Figure 1

Figure 6

Figure 1

Figure 7

Similar Articles

Recently Viewed

Read More

Most Viewed

Read More

Help ?