1. Meta-Analysis of Consumer Willingness to Pay for Specialty Attributes of Beef Robin White and Mike Brady ASAS/ADSA Joint Annual Meeting Indianapolis, IN July 11th, 2013

2. Why Social Acceptability?
Why Does Willingness to Pay Matter?
Sustainability
Why Social Acceptability?
Freedom of operation can be impeded by consumer-supported legislation restricting management practices .
Consumers “vote” with their pocket books.
A consumer’s choice to purchase reflects a good’s acceptability
This feeds back to retailers

3. Indicator-Based Approaches
How is Social Acceptability Measured?
Indicator-Based Approaches
Conceptual Framework
Internal Acceptability
Input Self Sufficiency
Equality
Risk and Uncertainty
Labor Conditions
Health
Gender Equality
Educational Opportunity
Worker Welfare
Mandates
Profitability
Costs
Revenue
Supply
Demand
External Acceptability
Food Security
Diversity of Food Supply
Socially Acceptable Practices
Freedom of Operation
Consumer Willingness to Pay
Legislative and Monetary Societal Acceptance

4. Developing Estimates of Willingness to Pay
Objective
To quantitatively summarize previous estimates of consumer willingness to pay for beef attributes to specifically identify willingness to pay for
low-environmental impact beef
Hypothesis
Beef products with private good attributes (taste/quality, personal health/safety) would have greater WTP
Beef products with public good attributes (local or
environmental) would have comparatively lower WTP

5. Data Collection and Coding
Literature Selection
AGRICOLA Database Search: Consumer Willingness to Pay Beef
Exclusion Criteria
Excluded for Failure to Present Numerical Willingness to Pay
Variable Coding
Location
Elicitation Method
Population

6. Data Analysis Regression Analysis 95% Confidence Intervals
Environmental, Healthy/Safe Products
Healthy/Safe Products
High Quality Products
Ideally Sized Yield
Safety Certified
No Hormones
Tenderness/Taste
Healthy
No Antibiotics
Local
Environmental
No GM Feed
Local Products
Environmental Products
Small Farm
Traceable
Vegetarian Diet
Grass-Fed
Environmental, Local Products
Local, Healthy/Safe Products
Organic

7. The Derived Dataset Study Collection Location Breakdown 16 Studies
44 Treatments
Study Focus Breakdown
11,000 Consumers
6 Countries
H = Healthy, Env = Environmental, L = Local

8. Participant & Methodology
Results: Basic Confidence Intervals
Location
Participant & Methodology
Consumer Willingness to Pay (% Premium)
Shopper
In-Person
Non-Hypothetical

9. Results: Beef Attribute Confidence Intervals
Beef Attributes
Consumer Willingness to Pay (% Premium)

10. Results: Regression Analysis
Model Statistics
Regression Outputs
R2 = 67.2%
Overall P =
Consumer Willingness to Pay
(% Premium)

11. What are the Implications for Sustainability?

12. Summary and Conclusions1.
16 studies representing 44 treatments and 11,000 consumers were identified 2.
95% Confidence Intervals indicated
higher willingness to pay for private goods than for public goods. 3.
Consumers were predicted to pay 4% premiums for “environmental” beef 4.
Consumers were predicted to pay 23% premiums for “environmental, healthy/safe” beef 5.
Consumers were predicted to pay 82% premiums for “environmental, local ” beef

13. Supplementary Detail Authors Location Sample Type Method Hyp.
Treatment
WTP (%)
Angulo and Gil (2007)
Spain
R.S.
Telephone Survey
Yes
Safety Certified
5.0
Belcher et al. (2007)
Canada
Mail Survey
Environmental
13.8
Beriain et al. (2009)
In person survey
Healthy
8.3
Chung et al. (2009)
Korea
Shoppers
In Person Survey
Marbling
21.2
Fresh
20.6
No Antibiotics
22.9
No GMO
Fingerhut et al. (2001) US
Shopper
Steam Pasteurized
84.1
Irradiated
72.5
Froehlich et al. (2009)
Experiment No
Prairie Prime
14.1
TenderGrill
15.5
Natures Diamond
15.4
Original Angus
Control
13.2

14. Supplementary Detail Authors Location Sample Type Method Hyp.
Treatment
WTP (%)
Herring et al. (2007) US
Shoppers
In Person Survey
Yes
Farm Raised
17.3
Loureiro and Umberger (2006)
R.S.
Mail Survey
Traceable
28.1
Safe
119.5
Tender
14.1
Cool Labeled
38.0
Lusk et al. (2003)
France
No hormones
116.9
No GMO feed
116.8
Germany
85.8
90.2 UK
86.9
74.2
95.5
38.9
Napolitano et al. (2010)
Italy
Experiment No
Organic
49.8

15. What are the Implications for Sustainability?
Authors
Location
Sample Type
Method
Hyp.
Treatment
WTP (%)
Platter et al. (2005) US
R.S.
Experiment No
Prime
46.0
Sweeter et al. (2005)
Large
7.6
Thilmany et al. (2003)
Mail Survey
Yes
Natural
24.0
Tonsor et al. (2009b)
Canada
Tender
58.0
40% Safety
29.8
80% Safety
45.6
Japan
213.7
30.4
293.9
Mexico
59.7
14.6
73.9
44.9
17.2
-9.8

16. What are the Implications for Sustainability?
Authors
Location
Sample Type
Method
Hyp.
Treatment
WTP (%)
Umberger et al. (2009b) US
R.S.
Telephone Survey
Yes
Natural Ribeye
10.0
Natural Ground Beef
28.0
Natural Pre-cooked
5.0
Umberger et al. (2009a)
Experiment No
Production
0.8
Production, health
13.2