Consumer valuation of improved rice parboiling technologies in Benin
Consumer valuation of improved rice parboiling technologies in Benin
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.07.005
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-01
影响因子：
5.3
通讯作者：
Verbeke, Wim
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Demont, Matty;Zossou, Esperance;Verbeke, Wim
在贝宁，传统的煮米方式在大米加工者中仍然广泛使用，导致粮食质量低劣。介绍了一种新型蒸煮机，以提高当地大米的碾磨率和内在品质。我们进行了Vickrey第二次价格拍卖，以吸引贝宁农村消费者愿意支付通过新管道和两个本地创新管道获得的大米。个人拍卖之后是一个小组讨论，在此期间就社会可接受的价格达成共识。与传统蒸熟的大米相比，消费者愿意为使用底部为穿孔金属容器的本地蒸熟大米支付9-13%的溢价，愿意为使用底部有木棍的本地蒸熟大米支付27%的溢价，愿意为使用改进的蒸熟大米支付25-34%的溢价。根据感知质量，出价受到产品呈现顺序的影响。当参与者被告知改进的煮熟技术的好处时，出价也更高，这是为这种提高质量的产品制定营销和传播策略的关键见解。集体出价与个人出价没有显著差异，这表明后者在通过群体共识确定的社会可接受价格范围内。(C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd.版权所有。
In Benin, traditional parboiling is still widely practiced among rice processors, resulting in inferior grain quality. A new parboiler was introduced to improve the milling yield and intrinsic quality of local rice. We conducted Vickrey second price auctions to elicit rural Beninese consumers' willingness to pay for rice obtained through the new parboiler and two locally innovated parboilers. The individual auctions were followed by a group discussion during which consensus was reached on socially acceptable prices. Relative to traditionally parboiled rice, consumers were willing to pay price premiums of 9-13% for rice obtained through a local parboiler using a container of which the bottom is a perforated metal, 27% for rice obtained through a local parboiler using wooden sticks at the bottom of the pot, and 25-34% for rice parboiled through the improved parboiler. Bids were influenced by the presentation order of the products according to perceived quality. Bids were also higher when participants had been informed on the benefits of improved parboiling techniques, which is a crucial insight for developing marketing and communication strategies for this improved quality product. Group bids were not significantly different from individual bids which suggests that the latter are within the range of socially acceptable prices defined through group consensus. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.