Preferences in ‘Jalapeño’ Pepper Attributes: A Choice Study in Mexico
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Collection and Sampling
2.2. The Discrete Choice Experiment: Theory and Modelling Approach
2.3. Latent Class Analysis
2.4. The Discrete Choice Experiment: Empirical Applications
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Sample Description
3.2. Consumer Preferences on ‘Jalapeño’ Attributes
3.3. Consumer Heterogeneity towards ‘Jalapeño’ Peppers
3.4. Profile of Consumer Segments
4. Conclusions
5. Patents
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- FAOSTAT. Organización de las Naciones Unidas Para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO). 2020. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org (accessed on 5 July 2021).
- FAO. Alimentación y Agricultura Sostenible. 2021. Available online: http://fao.org (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- OECD. Persectivas Agrícolas 2021–2030. 2021. Available online: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/es/c/CB5339ES (accessed on 12 July 2021).
- SIAP. Avances de Siembras y Cosechas por Estado y Año Agrícola. Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación. 2021. Available online: http://siap.gob.mx (accessed on 23 March 2021).
- Galindo, G. El servicio de asistencia técnica a los productores de chile seco en Zacatecas. Convergencia 2007, 14, 137–165. [Google Scholar]
- Labrado, H.; Suarez, J.; Suarez, S. Marketing en tiempos de crisis generado por la COVID-19. Rev. Espaç. 2020, 41, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, L.; Flannery, K.V. Precolumbian use of chili peppers in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 11905–11909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Verbeke, W. Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32, 347–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Burritt, R. Measuring and managing sustainability performance of supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2014, 19, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mejía, R. Percepciones y preferencias del consumidor de palmito fresco. Caso: Unión de asociaciones de productores de plantines y palmito. Perspectivas. 2013, 32, 61–104. [Google Scholar]
- Fandos, C.; Flavián, C. Intrinsic and extrinsic quality attributes, loyalty and buying intention: An analysis for a PDO product. Br. Food J. 2006, 108, 646–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papanagiotou, P.; Tzimitra-Kalogianni, I.; Melfou, K. Consumers’ expected quality and intention to purchase high quality pork meat. Meat Sci. 2013, 93, 449–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maza, M.T.; Ramírez, V. Distintas consideraciones en torno a los atributos de calidad de la carne de vacuno por parte de industria y consumidores. ITEA 2006, 102, 360–372. [Google Scholar]
- Espejel, J.; Fandos, C.; Flavian, C. La importancia de las DOP como indicadores de calidad para el comportamiento del consumidor. El caso del aceite de oliva del Bajo Aragon. Econ Agrar Recur Nat. 2007, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Melo, C.J.; Hollander, G.M. Unsustainable development: Alternative food networks and the Ecuadorian Federation of Cocoa Producers, 1995–2010. J. Rural. Stud. 2013, 32, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ottesen, G.G. Do upstream actors in the food chain know end-users’ quality perceptions? Findings from the Norwegian salmon farming industry. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2006, 11, 456–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- La Lama, G.C.M.-D.; Moreno, L.E.; Villarroel, M.; Rayas-Amor, A.A.; María, G.A.; Sepúlveda, W.S. Consumer Attitudes Toward Animal Welfare-Friendly Products and Willingness to Pay: Exploration of Mexican Market Segments. J. Appl. Anim. Welf. Sci. 2018, 22, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Toledano, B.; Zegbe, J.; Rumayor, A. Propuesta para evaluar el proceso de adopción de las innovaciones tecnológicas. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc. 2013, 4, 855–868. [Google Scholar]
- Velarde-Mendívil, A.T.; Camarena-Gómez, D.M.; Salgado-Beltrán, L. Preferencias hacia la marca y origen del ajo (Allium sativum l.). Rev La. Fac. Agron. 2021, 38, 732–749. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Toledano, B.; Kallas, Z.; Gil-Roig, J.M. Farmer preference for improved corn seeds in Chiapas, Mexico: A choice experiment approach. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 15, e0116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Herrera, E.; Macías, A.; Díaz, R.; Valadez, M.; Delgado, A. Uso de semilla criolla y caracteres de mazorca para la selección de semilla de maíz en México. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 2002, 25, 17–23. [Google Scholar]
- Malhotra, N. Completion Time and Response Order Effects in Web Surveys. Public Opin. Q. 2008, 72, 914–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- INEGI. Encuesta Nacional Agropecuaria: Resultados Generales. 2020. Available online: http://www.inegi.gob.mx (accessed on 20 September 2021).
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000; p. 19. [Google Scholar]
- Louviere, J.; Hensher, D. On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modelling. Transp. Res. Rec. 1982, 890, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
- Cerda, C. Una aplicación de experimentos de elección para identificar preferencias locales por opciones de conservación y desarrollo en el extremo sur de Chile. Bosque 2011, 32, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Álvarez-Farizo, B.; Hanley, N.; Barberán, R.; Lázaro, A. Choice modeling at the “market stall”: Individual versus collective interest in environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 60, 743–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gelaw, F.; Speelman, S.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Farmers’ marketing preferences in local coffee markets: Evidence from a choice experiment in Ethiopia. Food Policy 2016, 61, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vecchiato, D.; Tempesta, T. Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments. Energy 2015, 88, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Probst, L.; Houedjofonon, E.; Ayerakwa, H.M.; Haas, R. Will they buy it? The potential for marketing organic vegetables in the food vending sector to strengthen vegetable safety: A choice experiment study in three West African cities. Food Policy 2012, 37, 296–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Jauregui, M.; Touza, J.; White, P.C.; Soliño, M. Choice of biodiversity indicators may affect societal support for conservation programs. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 121, 107203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, Y.; Lv, D.; Cheng, J.; Wang, D.; Mo, W.; Xiang, Y. Valuation of environmental improvements in coastal wetland restoration: A choice experiment approach. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 15, e00440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meenakshi, J.; Banerji, A.; Manyong, V.; Tomlins, K.; Mittal, N.; Hamukwala, P. Using a discrete choice experiment to elicit the demand for a nutritious food: Willingness-to-pay for orange maize in rural Zambia. J. Health Econ. 2012, 31, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Castillo-Eguskitza, N.; Hoyos, D.; Onaindia, M.; Czajkowski, M. Unraveling local preferences and willingness to pay for different management scenarios: A choice experiment to biosphere reserve management. Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Profeta, A.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ expectations and willingness-to-pay for local animal products produced with local feed. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 651–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ola, O.; Menapace, L. Smallholders’ perceptions and preferences for market attributes promoting sustained participation in modern agricultural value chains. Food Policy 2020, 97, 101962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meemken, E.-M.; Barrett, C.B.; Michelson, H.C.; Qaim, M.; Reardon, T.; Sellare, J. Sustainability standards in global agrifood supply chains. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 758–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouma, E.; Ochieng, J.; Dione, M.; Pezo, D. Governance structures in smallholder pig value chains in Uganda: Constraints and opportunities for upgrading. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2017, 20, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanley, N.; Wright, R.E.; Adamowicz, V. Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment. Environ. Resour. Econ. 1998, 11, 413–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden, D. Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In Frontiers of Econometrics; Zarembka, P., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1973; pp. 105–142. [Google Scholar]
- Schipmann, C.; Qaim, M. Supply chain differentiation, contract agriculture, and farmers’ marketing preferences: The case of sweet pepper in Thailand. Food Policy 2011, 36, 667–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thurstone, L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1927, 34, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiebig, G.; Keane, P.; Louviere, J.; Wasi, N. The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29, 393–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scarpa, R.; Thiene, M.; Train, K. Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 90, 994–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pilatti, A.; Godoy, J.C.; Brussino, S.A.; Pautassi, R.M. Patterns of substance use among Argentinean adolescents and analysis of the effect of age at first alcohol use on substance use behaviors. Addict. Behav. 2013, 38, 2847–2850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scherer, M.; Beck, K.; Taylor, E.P.; Romosz, A.; Voas, R.; Romano, E. A Latent Class Analysis of DUI Offender Motivation and Awareness as Predictors of Performance While on Alcohol Ignition Interlocks. J. Subst. Use 2021, 26, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karnowski, V. Latent Class Analysis. Int. Encycl. Commun. Res. Methods 2017, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greene, W.H.; Hensher, D.A. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. Part B Methodol. 2003, 37, 681–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reyes-Escogido, L.; Gonzalez-Mondragon, G.; Vazquez-Tzompantzi, E. Chemical and pharmacological aspects of capsaicin. Molecules 2011, 16, 1253–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cázares-Sánchez, E.; Ramírez-Vallejo, P.; Castillo-González, F.; Soto-Hernández, M.; Rodríguez-González, T.; Chávez-Servia, L. Capsaicinoides y preferencia de uso en diferentes morfotipos de chile (Capsicum annuum L.) del centro-oriente. Portofolio dan Investasi Teor dan Apl Kanisius. 2005, 39, 627–638. [Google Scholar]
- Choice Metrics. Ngene 1.1.2 User Manual and Reference Guide. 2016. Available online: http://www.choice-metrics.com/ (accessed on 10 February 2021).
- Henser, D.A.; Greene, W.H. The Mixed Logit Model: The State of Practice. Transportation 2003, 30, 133–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elrod, T.; Louviere, J.J.; Davey, K.S. An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models. J. Mark. Res. 1992, 29, 368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, S.; Glowa, T. Discrete choice experiments and traditional conjoint analysis. Quirk’s Mark Res Rev. 2000, 3, 57–72. [Google Scholar]
- Enneking, U. Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: The case of the Q&S label. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2004, 31, 205–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mundo-Rosas, V.; Unar-Munguía, M.; Hernández, M.; Pérez-Escamilla, R.; Shamah-Levy, T. Food security in Mexican households in poverty, and its association with access, availability and consumption. Salud Publica Mex. 2020, 61, 866–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.; Sonntag, W.; Glanz-Chanos, V.; Forum, S. Consumer interest in environmental impact, safety, health and animal welfare aspects of modern pig production: Results of a cross-national choice experiment. Meat Sci. 2018, 137, 123–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vera-Guzmán, A.M.; Chávez-Servia, J.L.; Carrillo-Rodríguez, J.C.; López, M.G. Phytochemical evaluation of wild and cultivated pepper (Capsicum annuum L. and C. pubescens Ruiz & Pav.) from Oaxaca, Mexico. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 71, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Toledano, B.I.; Gómez, D.M.; Cuevas-Reyes, V.; Salgado-Beltrán, L. Characterization of the preferences towards jalapeño peppers from the perspective of the Sonoran consumers. Agro Product. 2021, 14, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludy, M.; Mattes, D. Comparison of sensory, physiological, personality, and cultural attributes in regular spicy food users and non-users. Appetite 2012, 58, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hidalgo-Milpa, M.; Arriaga-Jordán, C.M.; Cesín-Vargas, A.; Espinoza-Ortega, A. Characterisation of consumers of traditional foods: The case of Mexican fresh cheeses. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 915–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lillywhite, J.M.; Simonsen, J.E.; Uchanski, M.E. Spicy Pepper Consumption and Preferences in the United States. HortTechnology 2013, 23, 868–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hu, W.; Hünnemeyer, A.; Veeman, M.; Adamowicz, W.; Srivastava, L. Trading off health, environmental and genetic modification attributes in food. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2004, 31, 389–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.; Wang, S.; Zhu, D.; Hu, W.; Wang, H. Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork. China Econ. Rev. 2015, 35, 121–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maehle, N.; Iversen, N.M.; Hem, L.E.; Otnes, C. Exploring consumer preferences for hedonic and utilitarian food attributes. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 3039–3063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G. How changes in consumer behaviour and retailingaffect competence requirements for food producersand processors. Econ. Agrar. Recur. Nat. Resour. Econ. 2006, 6, 3–22. [Google Scholar]
- Akerlof, G.A. The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 1970, 84, 488–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cappelli, A.; Cini, E. Will the COVID-19 pandemic make us reconsider the relevance of short food supply chains and local productions? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 99, 566–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, H.; Zhang, Y.; Mittal, V. How Does Local–Global Identity Affect Price Sensitivity? J. Mark. 2017, 81, 62–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Romo-Muñoz, R.A.; Cabas-Monje, J.H.; Garrido-Henrríquez, H.M.; Gil, J.M. Heterogeneity and nonlinearity in consumers’ preferences: An application to the olive oil shopping behavior in Chile. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0184585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodriguez-Entrena, M.; Colombo, S.; Arriaza, M. The landscape of olive groves as a driver of the rural economy. Land Use Policy 2017, 65, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diaz, E.; Ivanic, A.S.; Watanabe, E.D. A study of food retailing: How does consumer price sensitivity vary across food categories and retailer types in Mexico? Contaduría Adm. 2019, 65, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Escobar-López, S.Y.; Espinoza-Ortega, A. Moctezuma-Pérez, S.; Chávez-Mejía, C.; Martínez-García, C.G. Consumers’ perception of different types of food markets in Mexico. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2021, 24, 112–114. [Google Scholar]
Information Collected | Experimental Period (Nov. 19–Mar. 2020). |
---|---|
Population | ‘Jalapeño’ consumers in Mexico. |
Universe | 67 million [23]. |
Confidence level | 99 × 100 |
Possible margin error | ±4 per 100 |
Sample | 1200 |
Sampling type | Simple random |
Attribute | Attribute Symbol | Level | Level Symbol |
---|---|---|---|
Price | A1 | 51 cents USD/kg | L1.1 |
56 cents USD/kg | L1.2 | ||
1.07 USD/kg | L1.3 | ||
2.05 USD/kg | L1.4 | ||
Fruit size | A2 | Medium (6.25 cm) | L2.1 |
Large (9 cm) | L2.2 | ||
Jumbo (10 cm) | L2.3 | ||
Pungency degree | A3 | Moderately spicy (6000 USc) | L3.1 |
Spicy (11,000 USc) | L3.2 | ||
Very spicy (17,500 USc) | L3.3 |
Card 1 | Option A | Option B | Option C |
---|---|---|---|
Size | Large (9 cm) | Jumbo (10 cm) | None of the above |
Price | Less than 51 cents | More than 2.05 USD | |
Pungency | Very spicy (17500 USc) | Spicy (11000 USc) | |
I would choose |
Sampled Population Characteristics | Sample (n = 1200) | Total Population (Mexico) |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Female | 66.0 | 51.4 |
Male | 34.0 | 48.6 |
Age (years) | ||
18–29 | 25.0 | 25.6 |
30–40 | 20.4 | 14.4 |
41–60 | 43.5 | 21.8 |
>60 | 11.1 | 10.5 |
Education level | ||
Primary or lower | 11.5 | 31.2 |
Secondary school | 20.2 | 27.9 |
High school | 26.8 | 21.7 |
University | 37.7 | 18.6 |
Graduate | 3.8 | 8 |
Income level in USD | ||
<251 | 46.1 | 29.0 |
251–550 | 31.7 | 32.0 |
551–770 | 13.1 | 34.0 |
771–1100 | 6.0 | 3.1 |
1101–1500 | 1.8 | 1.0 |
1501 and over | 1.3 | 0.9 |
Attribute | Probability Value | |
---|---|---|
Random parameters in utility functions | ||
Size | −0.03 | 0.015 |
Pungency | −0.04 | 0.00 |
Non-random parameters in utility functions | ||
Price | −0.05 | 0.000 |
No | −3.85 | 0.000 |
Scale parameters | ||
Variance parameter tau (τ +) in sacle parameter | 0.15 | 0.000 |
Weighting parameter gamma (γ ++) in GMX model | 0.82 | 0.000 |
NsSize | 0.17 | 0.000 |
NsPungency | 0.12 | 0.000 |
Log likelihood function | −5367.1 | |
Restricted log likelihood | −7031.2 | |
Pseudo-r2 | 0.24 |
Latent Class | Coefficient | Probability Value |
---|---|---|
Price sensitive (Latent Class 1) | Class 1, utility parameters | |
Size | −0.02 | 0.46 |
Pungency | −0.01 | 0.36 |
Price | −0.20 | 0.00 |
NO | −8.42 | 0.00 |
Attribute-indifferent (Latent Class 2) | Class 2, utility parameters | |
Size | −0.02 | 0.20 |
Pungency | −0.00 | 0.14 |
Price | −0.01 | 0.00 |
NO | −3.09 | 0.00 |
Attribute-specific preferences (Latent Class 3) | Class 3, utility parameters | |
Size | −0.06 | 0.09 |
Pungency | −0.14 | 0.00 |
Price | −0.07 | 0.00 |
NO | −3.03 | 0.00 |
Estimated latent class probabilities | ||
Probability | 0.32 | |
Probability | 0.51 | |
Probability | 0.15 | |
Log likelihood function | −5155.14 | |
Restricted log likelihood | −7031.11 | |
r2 | 0.26 |
Consumers | |||
---|---|---|---|
Parameters | Price-Sensitive | Non-Demanding (Indifferent) | Selective |
Purchase location | Market on wheels a,* | Market and supermarket a,b | Supermarket b |
Purchase quantity | 0.5 kg or less b | 0.5 to 1 kg a,b | 1 kg a |
No. of relatives who consume ‘Jalapeño’ | 1 to 3 b | 1 to 3 b | 4 to 6 a |
‘Jalapeño’ source | Important b | Indifferent c | Very important a |
Customized preference | Probable b | Indifferent c | Very likely a |
Consideration for processed products | Probable b | Indifferent c | Very likely a |
Substitutes | Bell peppers a | Bell and tree peppers b | Tree peppers b |
Agro-industrial product of preference | Snack a | Sauce b | Cheese c |
Monthly income | 251 to 550 USD c | 551 to 770 USD b | 771 to 1100 USD a |
Education | High school b | University a | University a |
Occupation | Housewives b | Office worker a | Office worker a |
Gender | Female a | Male b | Female a |
Age | 52 a | 30 c | 38 b |
Consumer percentage of the sample | 32 | 51 | 15 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sánchez-Toledano, B.I.; Cuevas-Reyes, V.; Kallas, Z.; Zegbe, J.A. Preferences in ‘Jalapeño’ Pepper Attributes: A Choice Study in Mexico. Foods 2021, 10, 3111. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123111
Sánchez-Toledano BI, Cuevas-Reyes V, Kallas Z, Zegbe JA. Preferences in ‘Jalapeño’ Pepper Attributes: A Choice Study in Mexico. Foods. 2021; 10(12):3111. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123111
Chicago/Turabian StyleSánchez-Toledano, Blanca Isabel, Venancio Cuevas-Reyes, Zein Kallas, and Jorge A. Zegbe. 2021. "Preferences in ‘Jalapeño’ Pepper Attributes: A Choice Study in Mexico" Foods 10, no. 12: 3111. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123111
APA StyleSánchez-Toledano, B. I., Cuevas-Reyes, V., Kallas, Z., & Zegbe, J. A. (2021). Preferences in ‘Jalapeño’ Pepper Attributes: A Choice Study in Mexico. Foods, 10(12), 3111. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10123111