Parameters estimated from ROL models, Thailand
| Dependent variable = rank of the choices | Texture | Aroma | Appearance | Nutritional benefits | Cooking characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.011 (0.03) | −0.0030 (0.04) | −0.012 (0.03) | 0.24 (0.21) | −0.091* (0.05) |
| Age squared | −0.00022 (0.00) | −0.000023 (0.00) | 0.00016 (0.00) | −0.0027 (0.00) | 0.0012** (0.00) |
| Gender (male = 1) | 0.15 (0.18) | −0.69** (0.31) | 0.074 (0.19) | −36.6 (5.24e+07)a | 0.011 (0.28) |
| Secondary education (yes = 1) | −0.15 (0.15) | −0.083 (0.21) | 0.094 (0.15) | 1.73 (1.12) | 0.11 (0.25) |
| Higher education (yes = 1) | −0.0026 (0.19) | −0.16 (0.28) | 0.057 (0.21) | 2.26* (1.28) | 0.026 (0.32) |
| Household size | 0.014 (0.04) | 0.052 (0.06) | −0.059 (0.04) | 0.25 (0.18) | 0.082 (0.06) |
| Employed (yes = 1) | 0.020 (0.11) | 0.18 (0.16) | −0.22* (0.11) | 0.033 (0.59) | 0.070 (0.18) |
| Access to internet (yes = 1) | 0.067 (0.14) | −0.100 (0.21) | −0.13 (0.16) | 0.28 (0.70) | 0.36 (0.23) |
| Log of per capita rice consumption | −0.034 (0.10) | 0.11 (0.14) | −0.013 (0.10) | −0.23 (0.55) | −0.26* (0.15) |
| Log of per capita income | 0.062 (0.09) | 0.24* (0.13) | −0.078 (0.10) | −0.24 (0.52) | 0.31** (0.15) |
| Log of rice price | −0.54* (0.28) | 0.78* (0.41) | −0.25 (0.28) | −0.94 (1.08) | −0.082 (0.46) |
| Rice share (%) | 0.0047 (0.01) | −0.037*** (0.01) | −0.0073 (0.01) | 0.0010 (0.03) | 0.012 (0.01) |
| Women are the principal grocery decision maker (yes = 1) | 0.14 (0.18) | −0.066 (0.26) | −0.018 (0.19) | −0.64 (0.81) | 0.84** (0.34) |
| Frequent rice buyer (yes = 1) | 0.21* (0.12) | 0.029 (0.17) | −0.26** (0.13) | −0.42 (0.73) | 0.66*** (0.19) |
| Log likelihood | −2511.6 | −1287.9 | −2287.2 | −94.7 | −1033.8 |
| LR (χ2) | 9.88 | 42.9*** | 15.5 | 21.5* | 33.0*** |
| Observations | 480 | 480 | 480 | 480 | 480 |
| Dependent variable = rank of the choices | Texture | Aroma | Appearance | Nutritional benefits | Cooking characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.011 (0.03) | −0.0030 (0.04) | −0.012 (0.03) | 0.24 (0.21) | −0.091* (0.05) |
| Age squared | −0.00022 (0.00) | −0.000023 (0.00) | 0.00016 (0.00) | −0.0027 (0.00) | 0.0012** (0.00) |
| Gender (male = 1) | 0.15 (0.18) | −0.69** (0.31) | 0.074 (0.19) | −36.6 (5.24e+07)a | 0.011 (0.28) |
| Secondary education (yes = 1) | −0.15 (0.15) | −0.083 (0.21) | 0.094 (0.15) | 1.73 (1.12) | 0.11 (0.25) |
| Higher education (yes = 1) | −0.0026 (0.19) | −0.16 (0.28) | 0.057 (0.21) | 2.26* (1.28) | 0.026 (0.32) |
| Household size | 0.014 (0.04) | 0.052 (0.06) | −0.059 (0.04) | 0.25 (0.18) | 0.082 (0.06) |
| Employed (yes = 1) | 0.020 (0.11) | 0.18 (0.16) | −0.22* (0.11) | 0.033 (0.59) | 0.070 (0.18) |
| Access to internet (yes = 1) | 0.067 (0.14) | −0.100 (0.21) | −0.13 (0.16) | 0.28 (0.70) | 0.36 (0.23) |
| Log of per capita rice consumption | −0.034 (0.10) | 0.11 (0.14) | −0.013 (0.10) | −0.23 (0.55) | −0.26* (0.15) |
| Log of per capita income | 0.062 (0.09) | 0.24* (0.13) | −0.078 (0.10) | −0.24 (0.52) | 0.31** (0.15) |
| Log of rice price | −0.54* (0.28) | 0.78* (0.41) | −0.25 (0.28) | −0.94 (1.08) | −0.082 (0.46) |
| Rice share (%) | 0.0047 (0.01) | −0.037*** (0.01) | −0.0073 (0.01) | 0.0010 (0.03) | 0.012 (0.01) |
| Women are the principal grocery decision maker (yes = 1) | 0.14 (0.18) | −0.066 (0.26) | −0.018 (0.19) | −0.64 (0.81) | 0.84** (0.34) |
| Frequent rice buyer (yes = 1) | 0.21* (0.12) | 0.029 (0.17) | −0.26** (0.13) | −0.42 (0.73) | 0.66*** (0.19) |
| Log likelihood | −2511.6 | −1287.9 | −2287.2 | −94.7 | −1033.8 |
| LR (χ2) | 9.88 | 42.9*** | 15.5 | 21.5* | 33.0*** |
| Observations | 480 | 480 | 480 | 480 | 480 |
Note(s): Figures between parentheses, are standard errors; *, **, and *** indicate 1%, 5%, and 10% level of significance, respectively. Base case for education is the primary and below levels of education. Since only 0.2% of all observations include the taste category, we excluded it from the estimation. a The large standard error is caused by almost perfect predictability