Consumers? valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service

被引:4
作者
Ding, Ye [1 ]
Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. [2 ]
Zeng, Yinchu [1 ]
Yang, Wei [3 ]
Snell, Heather Arielle [3 ]
机构
[1] Renmin Univ China, Sch Agr Econ & Rural Dev, 59 Zhongguancun St, Beijing 100872, Peoples R China
[2] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Agr Econ, 600 John Kimbrough Blvd, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
[3] Univ Arkansas, Dept Agr Econ & Agribusiness, 217 Agr Bldg, Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Live Kitchen; Online food delivery service; Food safety; Information provision; Choice experiment; WILLINGNESS-TO-PAY; CHOICE EXPERIMENT; BEHAVIORAL INTENTION; HYPOTHETICAL BIAS; INFORMATION; PREFERENCE; SAFETY; MODELS; LOGIT; HETEROGENEITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.foodpol.2022.102373
中图分类号
F3 [农业经济];
学科分类号
0202 ; 020205 ; 1203 ;
摘要
With the rapid development of online food delivery (OFD) service around the world, food safety issues are emerging. Traditional information-provision methods cannot alleviate the information asymmetry between consumers and restaurants in OFD service; therefore, a new approach must be found to increase consumers' information and gain their trust. Live Kitchen, a live video feed in restaurant kitchens, offers a new idea for providing food safety information through network technology. Using data from 683 respondents in Beijing and Shanghai in China, we examine consumers' valuation of Live Kitchen for OFD service by utilizing choice ex-periments and random parameter logit models with error components in WTP space. The results suggest that (i) consumers are willing to pay for Live Kitchen, more than traditional information-provision methods of license publicity and food safety supervision publicity, (ii) Live Kitchen can convey food safety information on OFD service to consumers, allowing them to draw a positive inference about the food safety of OFD service, and (iii) the application cost of Live Kitchen is much lower than the implied welfare gain.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 69 条
[1]   Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation [J].
Adamowicz, W ;
Boxall, P ;
Williams, M ;
Louviere, J .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 1998, 80 (01) :64-75
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2020, eServices Report 2020 - Fitness"
[3]   Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products [J].
Balogh, Peter ;
Bekesi, Daniel ;
Gorton, Matthew ;
Popp, Jozsef ;
Lengyel, Peter .
FOOD POLICY, 2016, 61 :176-184
[4]   Revisiting consumers' valuation for local versus organic food using a non-hypothetical choice experiment: Does personality matter? [J].
Bazzani, Claudia ;
Caputo, Vincenzina ;
Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. ;
Canavari, Maurizio .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2017, 62 :144-154
[5]   What information do consumers consider, and how do they look for it, when shopping for groceries online? [J].
Benn, Yael ;
Webb, Thomas L. ;
Chang, Betty P. I. ;
Reidy, John .
APPETITE, 2015, 89 :265-273
[6]  
China Internet Network Information Center, 2020, The 45th China statistical report on internet development.
[7]   Differences in perceptions about food delivery apps between single-person and multi-person households [J].
Cho, Meehee ;
Bonn, Mark A. ;
Li, Jun .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, 2019, 77 :108-116
[8]   Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method [J].
Cummings, RG ;
Taylor, LO .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 1999, 89 (03) :649-665
[9]   Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies [J].
Day, Brett ;
Bateman, Ian J. ;
Carson, Richard T. ;
Dupont, Diane ;
Louviere, Jordan J. ;
Morimoto, Sanae ;
Scarpa, Riccardo ;
Wang, Paul .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2012, 63 (01) :73-91
[10]   Consumer preferences for organically and locally produced apples [J].
Denver, Sigrid ;
Jensen, Jorgen Dejgaard .
FOOD QUALITY AND PREFERENCE, 2014, 31 :129-134