Yulian Ding, Jianyu Yu, Yangyang Sun, Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr, Yunyun Liu
{"title":"基因编辑食品还是转基因食品?风险和模糊性对中国消费者支付意愿的影响","authors":"Yulian Ding, Jianyu Yu, Yangyang Sun, Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr, Yunyun Liu","doi":"10.1111/agec.12767","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study investigates consumer preferences for newly introduced gene-edited (GE) food. We focus on how risk and ambiguity aversion affect consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid genetically modified (GM) food or GE food and whether the impacts of risk and ambiguity aversion differ between GM and GE food. We collected the data in 2020 through a nationwide online survey in China. The multiple price list method is used to estimate the premiums that consumers are willing to pay for conventional rice to avoid GM/GE rice. Our results show that Chinese urban consumers are more concerned about the health, environmental, and ethical impacts of genetic modification than gene editing technology. They are willing to pay lower premiums when the alternative is GE rice than when it is GM rice. We further find that both risk aversion and ambiguity aversion have significant negative impacts on respondents’ WTP for food derived from gene technologies, with ambiguity aversion being more influential than risk aversion for both GM and GE rice. However, there is no significant difference in how risk aversion and ambiguity aversion affect the respondents’ WTP to avoid GM or GE rice.</p>","PeriodicalId":50837,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Economics","volume":"54 3","pages":"414-428"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gene-edited or genetically modified food? The impacts of risk and ambiguity on Chinese consumers' willingness to pay\",\"authors\":\"Yulian Ding, Jianyu Yu, Yangyang Sun, Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr, Yunyun Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/agec.12767\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This study investigates consumer preferences for newly introduced gene-edited (GE) food. We focus on how risk and ambiguity aversion affect consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid genetically modified (GM) food or GE food and whether the impacts of risk and ambiguity aversion differ between GM and GE food. We collected the data in 2020 through a nationwide online survey in China. The multiple price list method is used to estimate the premiums that consumers are willing to pay for conventional rice to avoid GM/GE rice. Our results show that Chinese urban consumers are more concerned about the health, environmental, and ethical impacts of genetic modification than gene editing technology. They are willing to pay lower premiums when the alternative is GE rice than when it is GM rice. We further find that both risk aversion and ambiguity aversion have significant negative impacts on respondents’ WTP for food derived from gene technologies, with ambiguity aversion being more influential than risk aversion for both GM and GE rice. However, there is no significant difference in how risk aversion and ambiguity aversion affect the respondents’ WTP to avoid GM or GE rice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agricultural Economics\",\"volume\":\"54 3\",\"pages\":\"414-428\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agricultural Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.12767\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.12767","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS & POLICY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Gene-edited or genetically modified food? The impacts of risk and ambiguity on Chinese consumers' willingness to pay
This study investigates consumer preferences for newly introduced gene-edited (GE) food. We focus on how risk and ambiguity aversion affect consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid genetically modified (GM) food or GE food and whether the impacts of risk and ambiguity aversion differ between GM and GE food. We collected the data in 2020 through a nationwide online survey in China. The multiple price list method is used to estimate the premiums that consumers are willing to pay for conventional rice to avoid GM/GE rice. Our results show that Chinese urban consumers are more concerned about the health, environmental, and ethical impacts of genetic modification than gene editing technology. They are willing to pay lower premiums when the alternative is GE rice than when it is GM rice. We further find that both risk aversion and ambiguity aversion have significant negative impacts on respondents’ WTP for food derived from gene technologies, with ambiguity aversion being more influential than risk aversion for both GM and GE rice. However, there is no significant difference in how risk aversion and ambiguity aversion affect the respondents’ WTP to avoid GM or GE rice.
期刊介绍:
Agricultural Economics aims to disseminate the most important research results and policy analyses in our discipline, from all regions of the world. Topical coverage ranges from consumption and nutrition to land use and the environment, at every scale of analysis from households to markets and the macro-economy. Applicable methodologies include econometric estimation and statistical hypothesis testing, optimization and simulation models, descriptive reviews and policy analyses. We particularly encourage submission of empirical work that can be replicated and tested by others.