Consumer demand for food at home and food away from home: Understanding economic linkages during the pandemic

Balagtas, Joseph Valdes; Cooper, Joseph; McLaughlin, Patrick W.; Qin, Fei

doi:10.1002/aepp.13361

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…), and despite the pandemic induced drop, a rapid recovery in demand resulted in almost 53% of all household food expenditures in the U.S. being attributable to FAFH in 2021 (USDA ERS, 2022). Importantly, demand for FAFH has been identified as a substitute for FAH, with demand changes of FAFH directly affecting the demand and prices of FAH (Balagtas et al, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer preferences for food away from home: Dine in versus delivery

Kilders,

Caputo,

Lusk

2023

American J Agri Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food away from home (FAFH) is an integral part of U.S. consumer diets, with food delivery orders becoming more popular in recent years. However, little research has been done on whether choice patterns vary across dining settings and how this might affect the impact food policies such as a red meat tax would have on consumer welfare. We target this gap by implementing a food menu basket‐based experiment (FM‐BBCE) to determine consumer preferences and demand for FAFH in two dining settings: in‐restaurant dining and food delivery. The FM‐BBCE approach enables us to (a) identify the substitution and complementarity patterns between various food types (meat vs. plant‐based food) and courses (appetizers, main courses, and side dishes), and (b) determine the demand and welfare impact of a red meat tax across the two settings. We find that respondent's orders in the delivery setting are typically higher in calories, and most items act as complements for one another, whereas menu items are substitutes in the dine‐in setting. Consumers were generally more price elastic in dine‐in versus delivery settings. Sociodemographics influence choice; for example, urban consumers have a higher preference for plant‐based meat alternatives than rural or suburban respondents. These sociodemographic differences extend to the welfare effects of a red meat tax that we simulate, which is regressive toward low‐income individuals in the delivery setting but not in the dine‐in setting. Findings from this study provide new insights on FAFH consumption, which can be used by producers, policymakers, and academics.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%