Parameters estimated from ROL models, Vietnam
| Dependent variable = rank of the choices | Taste | Texture | Aroma | Appearance | Nutritional benefits | Cooking characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.10 (0.09) | −0.031 (0.04) | −0.028 (0.06) | −0.057 (0.06) | −0.035 (0.07) | 0.23 (0.17) |
| Age squared | −0.0010 (0.00) | 0.00040 (0.00) | 0.00047 (0.00) | 0.00062 (0.00) | 0.00035 (0.00) | −0.0040* (0.00) |
| Gender (male = 1) | −45.3 (.)a | −0.68 (0.46) | −0.30 (0.73) | 0.067 (0.59) | −0.49 (0.91) | 2.20*** (0.80) |
| Secondary education (yes = 1) | −0.058 (0.49) | 0.18 (0.29) | 0.53 (0.42) | −0.21 (0.35) | −0.61* (0.35) | −0.28 (0.92) |
| Higher education (yes = 1) | −0.37 (0.69) | 0.21 (0.36) | 0.42 (0.51) | −0.30 (0.47) | −0.35 (0.52) | −0.66 (1.17) |
| Household size | −0.36*** (0.13) | −0.0097 (0.05) | 0.14** (0.06) | 0.13** (0.06) | −0.068 (0.09) | −0.29 (0.22) |
| Employed (yes = 1) | 0.048 (0.29) | 0.22 (0.16) | 0.20 (0.20) | 0.089 (0.21) | −0.21 (0.26) | −0.93* (0.55) |
| Access to internet (yes = 1) | 0.35 (0.36) | 0.24 (0.19) | −0.070 (0.24) | −0.35 (0.26) | −0.38 (0.33) | −0.38 (0.54) |
| Log of per capita rice consumption | −0.43 (0.44) | −0.024 (0.23) | -0.52* (0.30) | −0.21 (0.31) | 0.72* (0.37) | 0.34 (0.79) |
| Log of per capita income | 0.031 (0.36) | −0.074 (0.19) | −0.11 (0.25) | 0.16 (0.25) | −0.068 (0.30) | 0.064 (0.55) |
| Log of rice price | −0.99 (0.85) | 0.099 (0.40) | 0.42 (0.54) | 0.021 (0.58) | 0.66 (0.67) | 1.27 (1.38) |
| Rice share (%) | 0.035 (0.02) | 0.0026 (0.01) | −0.021 (0.02) | −0.027 (0.02) | 0.0051 (0.02) | 0.043 (0.04) |
| Women are the principal grocery decision maker (yes = 1) | 0.13 (0.66) | −0.21 (0.28) | 0.58 (0.47) | −0.21 (0.38) | 0.20 (0.52) | 0.96 (1.04) |
| Frequent rice buyer (yes = 1) | 0.0021 (0.48) | 0.20 (0.24) | −0.050 (0.34) | −0.26 (0.35) | −1.45** (0.71) | −0.21 (0.89) |
| Log likelihood | −357.2 | −1344.7 | −804.3 | −764.1 | −526.2 | −130.2 |
| LR (χ2) | 17.1 | 11.7 | 28.2** | 11.7 | 23.3** | 26.4** |
| Observations | 288 | 288 | 288 | 288 | 288 | 288 |
| Dependent variable = rank of the choices | Taste | Texture | Aroma | Appearance | Nutritional benefits | Cooking characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.10 (0.09) | −0.031 (0.04) | −0.028 (0.06) | −0.057 (0.06) | −0.035 (0.07) | 0.23 (0.17) |
| Age squared | −0.0010 (0.00) | 0.00040 (0.00) | 0.00047 (0.00) | 0.00062 (0.00) | 0.00035 (0.00) | −0.0040* (0.00) |
| Gender (male = 1) | −45.3 (.)a | −0.68 (0.46) | −0.30 (0.73) | 0.067 (0.59) | −0.49 (0.91) | 2.20*** (0.80) |
| Secondary education (yes = 1) | −0.058 (0.49) | 0.18 (0.29) | 0.53 (0.42) | −0.21 (0.35) | −0.61* (0.35) | −0.28 (0.92) |
| Higher education (yes = 1) | −0.37 (0.69) | 0.21 (0.36) | 0.42 (0.51) | −0.30 (0.47) | −0.35 (0.52) | −0.66 (1.17) |
| Household size | −0.36*** (0.13) | −0.0097 (0.05) | 0.14** (0.06) | 0.13** (0.06) | −0.068 (0.09) | −0.29 (0.22) |
| Employed (yes = 1) | 0.048 (0.29) | 0.22 (0.16) | 0.20 (0.20) | 0.089 (0.21) | −0.21 (0.26) | −0.93* (0.55) |
| Access to internet (yes = 1) | 0.35 (0.36) | 0.24 (0.19) | −0.070 (0.24) | −0.35 (0.26) | −0.38 (0.33) | −0.38 (0.54) |
| Log of per capita rice consumption | −0.43 (0.44) | −0.024 (0.23) | -0.52* (0.30) | −0.21 (0.31) | 0.72* (0.37) | 0.34 (0.79) |
| Log of per capita income | 0.031 (0.36) | −0.074 (0.19) | −0.11 (0.25) | 0.16 (0.25) | −0.068 (0.30) | 0.064 (0.55) |
| Log of rice price | −0.99 (0.85) | 0.099 (0.40) | 0.42 (0.54) | 0.021 (0.58) | 0.66 (0.67) | 1.27 (1.38) |
| Rice share (%) | 0.035 (0.02) | 0.0026 (0.01) | −0.021 (0.02) | −0.027 (0.02) | 0.0051 (0.02) | 0.043 (0.04) |
| Women are the principal grocery decision maker (yes = 1) | 0.13 (0.66) | −0.21 (0.28) | 0.58 (0.47) | −0.21 (0.38) | 0.20 (0.52) | 0.96 (1.04) |
| Frequent rice buyer (yes = 1) | 0.0021 (0.48) | 0.20 (0.24) | −0.050 (0.34) | −0.26 (0.35) | −1.45** (0.71) | −0.21 (0.89) |
| Log likelihood | −357.2 | −1344.7 | −804.3 | −764.1 | −526.2 | −130.2 |
| LR (χ2) | 17.1 | 11.7 | 28.2** | 11.7 | 23.3** | 26.4** |
| Observations | 288 | 288 | 288 | 288 | 288 | 288 |
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. Standard error of gender coefficient of demand for taste show (.), which implies that not many female indicated taste as their preferred option. aStandard error cannot be calculated due to perfect predictability