IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ven/wpaper/201908.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Attitude of European and Chinese consumers toward food products from IPM: results from a survey

Author

Listed:
  • Martina Mazzarolo

    (Department of Economics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice)

  • Giacomo Ferraro

    (Department of Economics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice)

  • Ilda Mannino

    (Venice International University - VIU)

  • M. Bruna Zolin

    (Department of Economics, Ca' Foscari University of Venice)

Abstract

The paper aims to illustrate the factors that can influence the choices of European and Chinese consumers of products obtained with a lower use of pesticides (IPM methods). The results, obtained from a survey, allow identifying the most aware categories, those still far from a complete knowledge of IPM methods and their potential. They can also suggest useful policies to achieve a more sustainable consumption behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Martina Mazzarolo & Giacomo Ferraro & Ilda Mannino & M. Bruna Zolin, 2019. "Attitude of European and Chinese consumers toward food products from IPM: results from a survey," Working Papers 2019: 08, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    • Handle: RePEc:ven:wpaper:2019:08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.unive.it/pag/fileadmin/user_upload/dipartimenti/economia/doc/Pubblicazioni_scientifiche/working_papers/2019/WP_DSE_mazzarolo_ferraro_mannino_zolin_08_19.pdf
    File Function: First version, anno
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Travis A. & Huang, Chung L. & Lin, Biing-Hwan, 2009. "Does Price or Income Affect Organic Choice? Analysis of U.S. Fresh Produce Users," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 731-744, December.
    2. Maria Bruna Zolin & Matilde Cassin & Ilda Mannino, 2017. "Food security, food safety and pesticides: China and the EU compared," Working Papers 2017:02, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    3. William Young & Kumju Hwang & Seonaidh McDonald & Caroline J. Oates, 2010. "Sustainable consumption: green consumer behaviour when purchasing products," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(1), pages 20-31.
    4. Misra, Sukant K. & Huang, Chung L. & Ott, Stephen L., 1991. "Georgia Consumers' Preference for Organically Grown Fresh Produce," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 9(2), pages 1-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Phani Kumar Chintakayala & William Young & Ralf Barkemeyer & Michelle A. Morris, 2018. "Breaking niche sustainable products into the mainstream: Organic milk and free‐range eggs," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(7), pages 1039-1051, November.
    2. Ary José A. de Souza-Jr. & Flávio Terto, 2021. "The propensity to adaptation under the new era of climate changes," Working Papers REM 2021/0167, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, REM, Universidade de Lisboa.
    3. Dominique Diouf & Tessa Hebb & El Hadji Touré, 2016. "Exploring Factors that Influence Social Retail Investors’ Decisions: Evidence from Desjardins Fund," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 45-67, March.
    4. Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Stephan Zielke, 2017. "Can't Buy Me Green? A Review of Consumer Perceptions of and Behavior Toward the Price of Organic Food," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 211-251, March.
    5. Law, Jonathan M., 2020. "Organic and Conventional Milk Production Practices and Costs between 2005 and 2016: Comparisons and Contrasts by Farm Size, Region and Pasture Use," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304615, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Nasiri, Mohammad Sadegh & Shokouhyar, Sajjad, 2021. "Actual consumers' response to purchase refurbished smartphones: Exploring perceived value from product reviews in online retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    7. Sharp, Anne & Wheeler, Meagan, 2013. "Reducing householders’ grocery carbon emissions: Carbon literacy and carbon label preferences," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 240-249.
    8. Salwa Mkik & Mustapha Khouilid & Amina Aomari, 2017. "Green Advertising and Environmentally Consumption: The Level of Awareness and Moroccan Costumer’s Perception," Post-Print hal-01581428, HAL.
    9. Wong, Jonathan & Raghunathan, Uthra & Escalante, Cesar & Wolfe, Kent, 2010. "Consumer Premiums for Environmentally Friendly Grass-Fed and Organic Milk in the Southeast," Journal of Agribusiness, Agricultural Economics Association of Georgia, vol. 28(1).
    10. Rusitha Wijekoon & Mohamad Fazli Sabri, 2021. "Determinants That Influence Green Product Purchase Intention and Behavior: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-40, May.
    11. Yotam Rosner & Zohara Amitay & Amotz Perlman, 2022. "Consumer's attitude, socio-demographic variables and willingness to purchase green housing in Israel," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 5295-5316, April.
    12. Vilma Tamuliene & Egle Kazlauskiene & Lina Pileliene, 2016. "Ecologically-Conscious Consumer Purchases in Lithuania," Montenegrin Journal of Economics, Economic Laboratory for Transition Research (ELIT), vol. 12(4), pages 87-96.
    13. Zhao, Rui & Zhou, Xiao & Han, Jiaojie & Liu, Chengliang, 2016. "For the sustainable performance of the carbon reduction labeling policies under an evolutionary game simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 262-274.
    14. Yu Jiang & H. Holly Wang & Shaosheng Jin & Michael S. Delgado, 2019. "The Promising Effect of a Green Food Label in the New Online Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Liobikienė, Genovaitė & Mandravickaitė, Justina & Bernatonienė, Jurga, 2016. "Theory of planned behavior approach to understand the green purchasing behavior in the EU: A cross-cultural study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 38-46.
    16. Jing Shao, 2019. "Sustainable consumption in China: New trends and research interests," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(8), pages 1507-1517, December.
    17. Claudio Siminelli, 2017. "Consumer behaviours and attitudes towards a circular economy: Knowledge and culture as determinants in a four-market analysis," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2017(1-2), pages 135-169.
    18. Prudence Dato, 2018. "Investment in Energy Efficiency, Adoption of Renewable Energy and Household Behavior: Evidence from OECD Countries," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    19. Ragna Nilssen & Geoff Bick & Russell Abratt, 2019. "Comparing the relative importance of sustainability as a consumer purchase criterion of food and clothing in the retail sector," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(1), pages 71-83, January.
    20. Kucher Anatolii & Heldak Maria & Kucher Lesia & Fedorchenko Olha & Yurchenko Yuliia, 2019. "Consumer willingness to pay a price premium for ecological goods: a case study from Ukraine," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 38-49, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Food consumption; Regional Consumer Behavior; sustainable development; IPM products; EU; China;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • R2 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis
    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ven:wpaper:2019:08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Geraldine Ludbrook (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dsvenit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.