以聯合分析法評估有機農產品之驗證政策

Using Conjoint Analysis to Evaluate the Certification System of Organic Products

10.7086/TJAE.200912.0069

黃璋如(Chang-Ju Huang)；周孟萱(Men-Hsuen Chiou)

有機農產品 ； 聯合分析 ； 市場份額 ； 驗證政策 ； 產銷履歷 ； organic products ； conjoint analysis ； market share ； certification system ； traceability

應用經濟論叢

86期（2009 / 12 / 01）

69 - 94

繁體中文

本研究以聯合分析法估測在不同驗證制度下有機農產品之市場份額，以探討政府部門將有機農產品農藥殘留檢驗標準由「不得檢出」放寬至「安全容許量的5%」，以及強制有機農場實施「產銷履歷驗證」才能通過「有機驗證」之兩措施，是否真能提高消費者的效用及購買意願。 研究結果發現上網登錄產銷履歷並無法提高有機農產品之市場份額，而放寬農藥殘留檢驗標準，更使市場份額減少，顯示該兩政策並不是消費者所需要的。 聯合分析結果顯示，在農產品的四種屬性中，受訪者認爲標章最重要，農藥殘留標準與產銷履歷兩水準之重要性相差不多，價格的重要性最低。 在四種標章水準中，有機標章的效用最大，產銷履歷次之，吉園圃標章第三，無標章的效用遠低於上述標章。在農藥殘留標準的三個水準中，「不得檢出」帶給受訪者最高的效用，且遠高於效用其次之「安全容許量的5%」，安全容許量的效用最低。產銷履歷屬性的各種水準中，紙本記錄的效用稍低於上網登錄，但無記錄的效用則遠低於上述兩種記錄方式。在價格屬性中，價格越低效用越大，此與需求理論相符。

Taiwan government has been aggressively requiring organic products' traceability records to be registered in a specific website instead of a paper-based traceability system. Besides, the government proposed to allow the use of organic labels for products with residual pesticide up to 5% of the safety level instead of non-residue. This study attempted to examine if these policies are expected by the consumers. The conjoint analysis results indicate that online traceability registration has no appreciable advantage over paper-based registration in terms of market share. This study also discovered that the liberalization of the definition of organic produce to include ”5% of safety level” will actually decrease the market share of organic products. The results show that among the four attributes for agricultural products, ”certification” has the highest degree of importance, followed by the approximately equal ”residual pesticide level” and ”traceability”, with ”price” being the lowest. In various certification schemes, organic products have the highest level of utility, followed by TAP and GAP. Uncertified products rank the lowest. In traceability attributes, online registration has slightly higher utility than paper-based registration, with no traceability having the lowest level. In the detection of residual pesticide, ”none detected” has a much higher utility level than ”5% of safety level” and ”safety level.”

1. Alriksson, S.,T. Oeberg(2008).Conjoint Analysis for Environmental Evaluation-A Review of Methods and Applications.Environment Science Research & Pollution,15,244-257.
2. Belcher, K. W.,A. E. Germann,J. K. Schmutz(2007).Beef with Environmental and Quality Attributes: Preferences of Environmental Group and General Population Consumers in Saskatchewan, Canada.Agriculture and Human Values,24,333-342.
3. Bishai, D.,J. Sindelar,E. P. Ricketts,S. Huettner,L. Cornelius,J. J. Lloyd,J. R. Havens,C. A. Latkin,S. A. Strathdee(2008).Willingness to Pay for Drug Rehabilitation: Implications for Cost Recovery.Journal of Health Economics,27,959-972.
4. Bradlow, E. T.(2005).Current Issues and a Wish List for Conjoint Analysis.Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry,21,319-323.
5. Breidert, C.,M. Hahsler,T. Reutterer(2006).A Review of Methods for Measuring Willingness-To-Pay.Innovative Marketing,2,8-32.
6. Cattin, P.,G. Punj(1984).Factors Influencing the Selection of Preference Model Form for Continuous Utility Functions in Conjoint Analysis.Marketing Science,3,73-82.
7. Eamhart, D.(2006).Using Contingent-Pricing Analysis to Value Open Space and Its Duration at Residential Locations.Land Economics,82,17-35.
8. Green, P. E.(1978).Additive Decomposition of Perceptions Data Via Conjoint Analysis.The Journal of Consumer Research,5,58-65.
9. Green, P. E.(1992).An Application of a Product Positioning Model to Pharmaceutical Products.Marketing Science,11,117-132.
10. Green, P. E.,V. R. Rao(1971).Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data.Journal of Marketing Research,3,355-363.
11. Green, P. E.,V. Srinivasan(1978).Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook.The Journal of Consumer Research,5,103-123.
12. Green, P. E.,V. Srinivasan(1990).Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice.Journal of Marketing,54,3-19.
13. Hartmann, A.,H. Sattler(1996).Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.Research Papers on Marketing and Retailing, No. 6.
14. Horst, H. S.(1996).Eliciting the Relative Importance of Risk Factors Concerning Contagious Animal Diseases Using Conjoint Analysis: a Preliminary Survey Report.Preventive Veterinary Medicine,27,183-195.
15. Huang-Tzeng, C. -J.(2000).The 18th Joint Board Meeting of the Sino-German Association for Economic and Social Research.Taipei:
16. Huber, J. C.,D. R. Wittink,J. A. Fiedler,L. M. Richard(1991).An Empirical Comparison of ACA and Full Profile Judgements.Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings,Sequim:
17. Johnson, R.(2001).History of ACA.Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series.
18. Johnson, R. M.(2000).Understanding HB: An Intuitive Approach.Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings,Sequim:
19. Johnson, R.,B. Orme(2003).Getting the Most from CBC.Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series.
20. Lenk, P. J.(1996).Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs.Marketing Science,15,173-191.
21. Lieberman, M.(2003).Using Conjoint Analysis to Shape the Message.Admap Magazine,November,27-29.
22. Louviere, J. J.(1983).Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event.The Journal of Consumer Research,10,348-361.
23. Louviere, J. J.,T. Islam(2008).A Comparison of Importance Weights and Willingness-to-Pay Measures Derived from Choice-Based Conjoint, Constant Sum Scales and Best-Worst Scaling.Journal of Business Research,61,903-911.
24. McFadden, D.(1986).The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research.Marketing Science,5,275-297.
25. McFadden, D.(1998).Theoretical Foundation of Travel Choice Modeling.Amsterdam:Elsevier Science.
26. Orme, B.(2000).Hierarchical Bayes: Why All the Attention?.Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series.
27. Orme, B.(2006).Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research.Madison Wis.:Research Publishers LLC.
28. Orme, B.(1998).Sample Size Issues for Conjoint Analysis Studies.Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series.
29. Rambonilaza, M.(2007).Land-use Planning and Public Preferences: What can We Learn from Choice Experiment Method?.Landscape and Urban Planning,83,318-326.
30. Sawtooth Software Inc.(2007).CBC/HB Software for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation for CBC Data V4.Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series.
31. Sawtooth Software Inc.(2008).The CBC System for Choice-based Conjoint Analysis.Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series.
32. Sawtooth Software, Inc.(2005).The CBC/HB System for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation.Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series.
33. Wittink, D. R.,P. Cattin(1989).Commercial Use Of Conjoint Analysis: An Update.Journal of Marketing,53,91-96.
34. Zinkham, F. C.,T. P. Holmes,D. E. Mercer(1997).Conjoint Analysis: A Preference-based Approach for the Accounting of Multiple Benefits in Southern Forest Management.Southern Journal of Applied Foresting,21,180-186.
35. 李昊(1992)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立台北大學都市計劃研究所。
36. 張可欣(2008)。碩士論文(碩士論文)。國立宜蘭大學應用經濟研究所。
37. 黃璋如(1988)。消費者對蔬菜安全偏好之聯合分析。農業經濟半年刊，66，21-47。
38. 羅淑娟、蔡佳璋(2005)。應用層級貝式法於線上消費行爲管制之探索研究。商管科技季刊，6，237-251。

1. 楊婷雅,陸怡蕙,張芸慈(2022)。有機農法採用之空間計量分析：以農業普查稻作農家為例。應用經濟論叢，111，1-41。