Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28068
標題: 食品安全資訊價值之研究-以國產牛肉產銷履歷為例
A Study on the Value of Food Safety Information - Case of Traceability system for Domestic Beef
作者: 陳志成
Chen, Chi-Cheng
關鍵字: 資訊技術;Information Technology;產銷履歷;願付數額;條件評估法;雙界二元選擇模型;Traceability;Willingness-To-Pay;Contingent Valuation Method;Double bound dichotomous choice model
出版社: 應用經濟學系所
引用: 江福松。2001。差分需求體系模型之建構與選擇-以台灣地區總和食品需求為例。農業經濟半年刊,70:117-148。 李俊鴻,2005。洪災風險降低之健康效益評估。國立中興大學應用經濟學系博士論文。 吳統雄。1990。電話調查:理論與方法。聯經出版事業公司。 洪景彬。2000。台灣地區食品完整需求體系之研究。國立台灣大學農業經濟研究所博士論文。 胡忠一。2005a。日本農產品產銷履歷制度概況。中國畜牧,37(11):19-24。 胡忠一。2005b。建立我國農產品產銷履歷記錄制度。農業世界,20(4):30-44。 張靜文。2006。加拿大生產履歷制度:牛隻認證系統之介紹。行政院農委會。 陳宗玄。2001。台灣肉類需求動態與長期結構之研究。台灣銀行季刊,52(3)49-68。 陳凱俐、吳菁樺、簡雅鳳、鍾毓芳、林筑君。1996。觀光果園之消費意向調查與經濟效益評估-以宜蘭縣為例。農業經營管理年刊,2:94-121。 陸雲。1990。環境資源估價之研究-非市場財估價法。經濟論文叢刊,18:93-135。 傅祖壇、葉寶文。2005。應用CVM在健康效益之評估高血壓疾病預防之願付價格。經濟論文叢刊,33(11):30-55。 黃宗亮、簡錦漢、傅祖壇。2000。消費者對食品安全之偏好與願付價值評估。12:33-65。 黃宗煌。1991。如何降低污染防制成本-條件評估法(上)。環保與經濟,18:70-72。 黃錦煌。2006。公共投資計畫之經濟效益評估-以華山地區為例。國立中興大學應用經濟學系博士論文。 詹滿色、傅祖壇。2007。台灣漁產品HACCP安全認證的價值評估-雙界二分假設市場評估法之應用。農業經濟叢刊,12(2):163-188。 Alberini, A. 1995a. Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models. Journal of Environment Economics and Management, 28: 287-306. Alberini, A. 1995b. Efficiency vs. Bias of Willingness to Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models. Journal of Environment Economics and Management, 29: 169-180. Arrow, K., R. Solow, P. R. Pothney, E. E. Learner, R. Radner and H. Schuman. 1993. Report from the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation, Federal Register, 58(10): 4601-4614. Boyle, K. J.and R.C. Bishop.1988. Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: a Comparison of Techniques. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 70(1): 20-28. Buzby, J. C., J. R. Skees and R.C. Ready. 1995. Contingent valuation in food policy analysis: a case study of pesticide reside risk reduction. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 27: 613-625. Buzby, J. C. and P. Frenzen. 1999. Food safety and product liability. Food Policy, 24: 637– 651. Buzby, J. C., R. C. Ready and J. R. Skees. 1995. Contingent Valuation in Food Policy Analysis: A Case Study of a Pesticide-Residue Risk Reduction. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 27(2): 613-625. Cameron, T. A and J. Quiggin. 1994. Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data From a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-up Questionnaire. Journal of Environment Economics and Management, 27: 218-234. Crutchfield, S. R, J. Cooper and D. Hellerstein. 1997. Benefits of Safer Drinking Water: The Value of Nitrate Reduction. Agricultural Economics Report, 752: 313-325. Cummings, R. G., D. S. Brookshire and W. S. Schulze. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods: A State of the Art Assignment of the Contingent Valuation Method. Totowa, N. J.: Rowman and Allenheld. Connor, J. and W. Schiek. 1997. An Industrial Powerhouse in Transition. Food Processing, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Darby, M. R. and E. Karni. 1973. Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud. Journal of Law and Economics, 16(1): 67-88. Davis, R. K. 1963. Recreation Planning as an Economics problem. Natural Resource Journal (3): 239-249. Dervin, B. 1977. Useful Theory for Librarianship: Communication, Not Information, Drexel Library Quarterly, 13: 29-48. Dickinson, D. L. and Bailey, D. 2002. Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing to Pay for It? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 27: 348-364. Elbasha, E. and T. L. Riggs. 2003. The Effects of Information on Producer and Consumer Incentives to Undertake Food Safety Efforts: A Theoretical Model and Policy Implications. Agribusiness: An International Journal, 19(1): 29-42. Englin, J. and T. A. Cameron. 1996. Augmenting travel cost models with contingent behavior data. Environmental and Resource Economics, 7(2): 133-147. Eom, Y. S. 1994. Pesticide esidue risk and food safety valuation: a random utility approach. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 76: 760-771. Fox, J. A., J. Shogren, D. Hayes and J. B. Kleibenstein. 1998. CVM-X: calibrating contingenr values with experimental auction market. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80: 455-465. Fu, T. T., J. T. Liu and J. Hammitt. 1999. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Low-Pesticide Produce in Taiwan. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50(2): 202-233. Geiger, R. and D. Hayes. 2003. Identification and Traceability for the Pork Industry - A Proposalfor a Feasibility Study. Report to the National Pork Board, 1-158. Giraud, G.2006. Consumers’ Perception of Food Traceability in Europe. International Food and Agribusiness Management Association World Food and Agribusiness Symposium. Golan, E., B. Krissoff, F. Kuchler, K. Nelson, G. Price and L. Calvin. 2003. Traceability in the U.S. Food Supply: Deadend or Superhighway? Choices, 2nd Quarter. Grijalva, T. C., R. P. Berrens, A. K. Bohara and W. D. Shaw. 2002. Testing the Vaildity of Contingent Behavior Trip Responses. American Agricultural Economics Association, 84(2): 401-414. Halbrendt, C., J. Pesek, A. Parsons and R. Lindner. 1995. Using Conjoint Analysis to Assess Consumers'' Acceptance of pST-Supplemented Pork. Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition. J. A. Caswell. Colorado, Westview Press: 9-153., Hammitt, J. K. 1986. Estimating Consumer Willingness to Pay to Reduce Food-Borne Risk. R-3447-EPA, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Hammitt, J. K. 1990. Risk Perceptions and Food Choice: An Exploratory Analysis of Organic-Versus Conventional-Produce Buyers. Risk Analysis, 10: 367–374. Hammitt, J. K. 2000a. Evaluating Contingent Valuation of Environmental Health Risks: The Proportionality Test. Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Newsletter, May. Hanemann, W. M. 1984. Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(4): 1054-1056. Hanemann, W. M., J. Loomis and B. Kannines. 1991. Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(4): 1255-1263. Henson, S., J. A., Caswell, J. Cranfield, A. Fazil, V. Davidson, S. Anders and C. Schmidt. 2007. A Multi-Factorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Food-Borne Pathogens. Report to the Public Health Agency of Canada. Henson, S. 1996. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reductions in the Risk of Food Poisoning in the UK. Journal of Agricultural Economics , 47(13): 403-420. Hewins, E. T. 1990. Information Need and Use Studies. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 25: 156-219. Hsiao, C. K. and C. C. Chen. 2006. Value of Food Information, Fifth international Conference of the Asian Federation For Information Technology in Aguiculture in Bangalore, India, 432-436. Hobbs, J. E. 2003. Traceability in meat supply chains. Current Agriculture, Food and Resource Issues, 4: 36– 49. Hobbs, J.E. 2004. Information Asymmetry and the Role of Traceability Systems. 20: 397-415. Hobbs, J. E., D. Bailey, D. L. Dickinson and M. Haghiri. 2005. Traceability in the Canadian Red Meat Market Sector: Do Consumers Care? Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53: 47-65. Huffman, W. E., M. Rousu, J. F. Shogren and A. Tegene. 2004. Consumer’s resistance to genetically modi ed foods: The role of information in an uncertain environment. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 2(2): 1-13. Kaiser, H. F. 1974. An index of Factorial Simplicity, Psychometrics, 39: 31-36. Kola, J. and T. Latvala. 2002. Demand for and Value of Credence Characteristics: Case Beef. Contributed paper at the 10th European Congress of Agricultural Economists, Zaragoza Spain. August: 28-31. Lawless, J. F. 2003. Statistical Models and Methods, for Lifetime Data, NY: Wiley. Li, Q., J. J. McCluskey and T. I. Wahl. 2004. Effects of information on consumer’s willingness to pay for GM-corn-fed beef. Journal of Agricultural and Food Industrial Organization, 2(2): 1-16. Lin, C. T. and J. W. Milton. 1993. Contingent valuation of health risk reductions for shellfish products. In Valuing food safety and nutrition. Edited by Caswell, J. A. Boulder, CO. Westview Press. Lin, J. and W. Milon. 1995. Consumer Valuation of Health Risk on Food Demand and the Implications for Regulation.. Valuing Food Safety and Nutrition, Boulder: Westview Press. Lusk, J. L., L.O. House, C. Valli, S. R. Jaeger, M. Moore, B. Morrow and W. B. Traill. 2004. Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(2): 179-204. Jensem, J. 1986. More consumers are willing to pay higher price for quality healthcare. Mod Healthc, 16: 48-49. Just R. E., D. L. Hueth and A. Schmitz. 2004. The Welfare Economics of Public Policy – A Practical Approach to Project and Policy Evaluation. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Misra, K. S., C. L. Huang and S. L. Ott. 1991. Consumer Willingness to Pay for Pesticide- Free Fresh Produce. Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, 16(2): 218-227. Mitchell, R. C. and R. T. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Washington, D.C. Randall, A. and J. R. Stoll. 1980. Consumer sirplus in commodity space. American Economic Review, 70(3): 449-455. Ravenswaay V., O. Eileen and J. P. Hoehn. 1991. Consumer Perspectives on Food Safety Issues: The Case of Pesticide Residues in Fresh Produce, The Proceedings of the American Council on Consumer Interests, Virginia A. Haldeman, Ed., Columbia, MO: American Council on Consumer Interests,. Rousu, M.. 2002. Information on genetically modified foods and how it affects consumers: Evidence from experimental auctions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Shin, S.Y., J. Kleibenstein, D. Hayes and J. Shogren.1992. Consumer willingness to pay for safer food products. Journal of Food Safety, 13: 51-39. Sinden, J. A. and A. C. Worrell, Unpriced Values: Decisions without Market Prices. Wiley Inter-Science, New York, 511-546. Souza-Monteiro, D. and J. A. Caswell. 2004. Traceability Adoption at the Farm Level: Analysis of the Portuguese Pear Industry. Selected paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Long Beach, California, 29-33. Spence, M.. 1974. Market signaling, Cambridge: Harvard Univeristy Press. Summer, D. A. and Sébastien P.. 2006. Traceability, Liability and Incentives for Food Safety and Quality. American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, 23-26. USDA. 2004. Government Food Safety Policies, Economic Research Services, September. Weaver, R. D., D. J. Evans and A. E. Luloff. 1992. Pesticide Use in Tomato Production: Consumer Concerns and Willingness-to-Pay, Agribusiness, 8(2): 1-22. Wessells, C. R. and J. G. Anderson. 1995. Consumer willingness to pay for seafood safety assurance. The Journal of Consumer Affair, 29: 85-107.
摘要: 
在現今資訊的時代裡,每一個人皆離不開資訊,資訊已經成為一項幫助決策的重要指標,資訊在監督、紀錄與追蹤食品生產過程扮演一個相當重要的角色,消費者也能透過資訊事前先進行決策。綜合前述對資訊之定義與價值之探討,如何建立一個概念性的模型衡量資訊對於生產與消費的價值即為本研究的目的。
自1981年在英國發現了第一個狂牛症(mad cow disease)的病例後,世界各國的牛肉產業紛紛受到嚴重的損失,美國因此約損失20億美元。有鑑於此,為保障消費者的食用衛生安全及穩定整個牛肉產業的發展,國際間興起由農(牧)場到餐桌(from farm to table)衛生安全的生產履歷制度。台灣為順應世界的潮流與趨勢,同時為了保護消費者健康與鼓勵生產者提供安全產品,於2004年建立了「台灣農業與食品追溯系統」(Taiwan Agriculture and Food Traceability System)。
本研究為衡量資訊所產生的價值,採用非市場財評估方法中的條件評價法來衡量國產牛肉生產者與消費者對於產銷履歷所產生的效益,本研究運用雙界二元選擇模型的問卷衡量方式,其結果如下:
一、 本研究透過因素分析將消費者對於食品安全認知程度區分成四個因素,分別為品質標示、法令依據、安全控管、消費信心。因此未來政府在推動食品安全制度時,應強化食品生產流程的控管、食品品質的標示並透過認證的方式,以加強消費者對於該制度的認知。
二、 消費者方面,產銷履歷所產生的效益分別是事前資訊的價值及保障消費權益價值。事前資訊的價值,消費者平均願付數額為14.32元/公斤;保障消費權益價值,消費者平均願付數額為28.85元/公斤,而目前在國產牛肉平均價格約為200元/公斤情況下,消費者願意額外支付約20%的價格來購買具產銷履歷的國產牛肉。其所產生的事前資訊總價值約為8千6百60萬元;保障消費權益總價值約為1億7千4百50萬元。
三、 生產者方面,產銷履歷所產生的效益分別產品區隔、提昇生產效率、提昇農產品安全性及提高農民收益。生產者產品區隔之價值,生產者平均願付數額為2416元/頭,其總效益為2億9千5百90萬元;提昇生產效率之價值,生產者平均願付數額為1051元/頭,其總效益為1億2千8百70萬元;提昇農產品安全性之價值,生產者平均願付數額為1965元/頭,其總效益為2億4千50萬元;提高農民收益價值,生產者平均願付數額為3187元/頭,其總效益為3億9千30萬元。

The purpose of this paper is to build a valuation approach that will be used to construct a framework with information regarding to food safety. Recently, some researches indicated the importance of using IT (information technology) to create values. IT indeed plays an important role in monitoring, recording, and tracing the process of food production. Therefore, consumers and producers can get benefit from the information provided by this system. To justify economically the system supplying information for clients, there is a need to develop a conceptual framework to measure information value from food safety.
Since the first case of mad cow disease had been identified in England in 1986, not only the beef industry but the food safety has drawn much attention around the world. In fact, the economic losses were estimated at 2 billion US dollars in 2005 simply for U.K.'s beef industry. In order to strengthen food safety, food traceability system has been developed in the U.S., European Union, Australia and Japan among others. This system provides customers with safe agricultural products by guaranteeing that these products are produced in correct ways and good environments. In 2004, Taiwan Agriculture and Food Traceability System (TAFT) had been developed in Taiwan.
In order to understand the value of traceability system which in domestic beef industry in Taiwan. We adopt non-market goods evaluation methods in contingent valuation method (CVM), to estimate the benefits of consumer and farmers. Double bound dichotomous choice model of CVM has been used in this study to estimate consumers' and farmer's willingness to pay for traceability system. The main results of this study are as follows:
1. We analyze the differences of perception and preference among consumer by using Likert scales. We use factor analysis to analyze the consumers' perception of food safety affecting factors, and extract these factors into four component dimensions. We rename new factors and sort them by weight of factors loading, the sequential order is as follows: quality and label, Protection and decree, process and safety, trust. From the viewpoint of management, a government implements suchlike management system of the food security must not only protect the consumers which could eat safety food, but also pay attention to the quality and label of food. In addition, it needs to enhance consumers' trust.
2. The numbers of benefit are ex ante information and protect consumers' right at consumer. The benefit of ex ante information is 14.32 NT dollars / kg. And the benefit of protect consumers' right is 28.85 NT dollars / kg. Consumers will pay more 20% price to buy domestic beef for using traceability system. The total value of information is approximately 250 millions NT dollars by consumers.
3. The numbers of benefit are product distinction, efficiency on production, food safety, and more profit for the farmer. The benefit of product distinction is 2416 NT dollars/cattle. The benefit of productive efficiency is 1051 NT dollars/cattle. The benefit of food safety is 1965 NT dollars/cattle. The benefit of profit is 3187 NT dollars/cattle. The total value of information is approximately 1 billions NT dollars by farmers.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/28068
其他識別: U0005-3107200701292000
Appears in Collections:應用經濟學系

Show full item record
 

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.