IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/agecon/v47y2016i2p247-258.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are French consumers ready to pay a premium for eco-labeled seafood products? A contingent valuation estimation with heterogeneous anchoring

Author

Listed:
  • Frédéric Salladarré
  • Dorothée Brécard
  • Sterenn Lucas
  • Pierrick Ollivier

Abstract

Could the future French eco-label for fresh seafood products find its place in the French market? This study employs a contingent valuation method to estimate French consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for eco-labeled fresh seafood products. We exploit original data from a survey carried out in 2010, where 626 participants responded to a double-bounded dichotomous choice model, through an ascending or descending bid system. Controlling for shift and anchoring effects in random effect probit models, we significantly improve estimation of WTP and its determinants for the three species studied (monkfish, lobster, sole), in particular when using heterogeneous anchoring. We show that WTP is positively correlated to respondents’ income, and also to their environmental concern, to living alone, to living far from the coast, and to trusting NGOs or public institutions more than producer organizations to implement an eco-label. We also show that the mean price premiums do not differ between species. Finally, on average, the maximum premium consumers accepted to pay is approximately 10% of the product price.

Suggested Citation

  • Frédéric Salladarré & Dorothée Brécard & Sterenn Lucas & Pierrick Ollivier, 2016. "Are French consumers ready to pay a premium for eco-labeled seafood products? A contingent valuation estimation with heterogeneous anchoring," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 247-258, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:agecon:v:47:y:2016:i:2:p:247-258
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/agec.12226
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin J. Boyle & F. Reed Johnson & Daniel W. McCollum, 1997. "Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1495-1500.
    2. Hanemann, W. Michael, . "Some Issues In Continuous - And Discrete - Response Contingent Valuation Studies," Northeastern Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9.
    3. Green, Donald & Jacowitz, Karen E. & Kahneman, Daniel & McFadden, Daniel, 1998. "Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 85-116, June.
    4. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    5. Fredrik Carlsson & Olof Johansson-Stenman, 2000. "Willingness to pay for improved air quality in Sweden," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(6), pages 661-669.
    6. van Ravenswaay, Eileen O. & Blend, Jeffrey R., 1999. "Consumer Demand For Ecolabeled Apples: Results From Econometric Estimation," Staff Paper Series 11673, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    7. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A., 2006. "A Battle of Taste and Environmental Convictions for Ecolabeled Seafood: A Contingent Ranking Experiment," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(2), pages 1-18, August.
    8. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    9. Herriges, Joseph A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1996. "Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 112-131, January.
    10. Bateman, Ian J. & Langford, Ian H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Kerr, Geoffrey N., 2001. "Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 191-213, July.
    11. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Controlling Starting-Point Bias in Double-Bounded Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 103-111.
    12. Aprahamian, Frederic & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stephane, 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Modeling Starting Point Bias as Unobserved Heterogeneity in Contingent Valuation Surveys: An Application to Air Pollution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 1-5, May.
    13. Teisl, Mario F. & Rubin, Jonathan & Noblet, Caroline L., 2008. "Non-dirty dancing? Interactions between eco-labels and consumers," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 140-159, April.
    14. Torgler, Benno & Garcia-Valinas, Maria A., 2007. "The determinants of individuals' attitudes towards preventing environmental damage," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 536-552, August.
    15. John C. Whitehead, 2002. "Incentive Incompatibility and Starting-Point Bias in Iterative Valuation Questions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(2), pages 285-297.
    16. Douadia Bougherara & Pierre Combris, 2009. "Eco-labelled food products: what are consumers paying for?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(3), pages 321-341, September.
    17. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A. & Donath, Holger & Asche, Frank, 2001. "Measuring Consumer Preferences For Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-20, July.
    18. Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2004. "What's it worth? An examination of historical trends and future directions in environmental valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-25.
    19. Maria L. Loureiro & Azucena Gracia & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2006. "Do consumers value nutritional labels?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(2), pages 249-268, June.
    20. Jacob Ladenburg, 2013. "Does gender-specific starting point bias in choice experiments prevail among well-informed respondents: evidence from an empirical study," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(17), pages 1527-1530, November.
    21. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2008. "Individual sensitivity to framing effects," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 296-307, July.
    22. Gary D. Thompson, 1998. "Consumer Demand for Organic Foods: What We Know and What We Need to Know," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1113-1118.
    23. Bjorner, Thomas Bue & Hansen, L.G.Lars Garn & Russell, Clifford S., 2004. "Environmental labeling and consumers' choice--an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 411-434, May.
    24. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard & Stéphane Luchini, 2007. "Heterogeneous anchoring in dichotomous choice valuation framework," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 73(4), pages 369-385.
    25. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    26. Salmela, Suvi & Varho, Vilja, 2006. "Consumers in the green electricity market in Finland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3669-3683, December.
    27. Michael Hanemann & John Loomis & Barbara Kanninen, 1991. "Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 73(4), pages 1255-1263.
    28. David L. Ortega & H. Holly Wang & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar, 2014. "Aquaculture imports from Asia: an analysis of U.S. consumer demand for select food quality attributes," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 625-634, September.
    29. Donald M. McLeod & Olvar Bergland, 1999. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates Using the Double-Bounded Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation Format: A Test for Validity and Precision in a Bayesian Framework," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 115-125.
    30. Gregory L. Poe & Kelly L. Giraud & John B. Loomis, 2005. "Computational Methods for Measuring the Difference of Empirical Distributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(2), pages 353-365.
    31. Salladarré Frédéric & Guillotreau Patrice & Perraudeau Yves & Monfort Marie-Christine, 2010. "The Demand for Seafood Eco-Labels in France," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-26, December.
    32. Cathy A. Roheim & Frank Asche & Julie Insignares Santos, 2011. "The Elusive Price Premium for Ecolabelled Products: Evidence from Seafood in the UK Market," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 655-668, September.
    33. Seung-Hoon Yoo & Kyung-Suk Chae, 2001. "Measuring the Economic Benefits of the Ozone Pollution Control Policy in Seoul: Results of a Contingent Valuation Survey," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 38(1), pages 49-60, January.
    34. Kanninen Barbara J., 1995. "Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 114-125, January.
    35. Aprahamian, Frederic & Chanel, Olivier & Luchini, Stephane, 2008. "Heterogeneous anchoring and the shift effect in iterative valuation questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 12-20, January.
    36. Ek, Kristina & Söderholm, Patrik, 2008. "Norms and economic motivation in the Swedish green electricity market," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 169-182, December.
    37. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    38. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
    39. Dupont, Diane P., 2004. "Do children matter? An examination of gender differences in environmental valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 273-286, July.
    40. Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Stéphane Luchini, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Post-Print inserm-00636179, HAL.
    41. Jaffry, Shabbar & Pickering, Helen & Ghulam, Yaseen & Whitmarsh, David & Wattage, Prem, 2004. "Consumer choices for quality and sustainability labelled seafood products in the UK," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 215-228, June.
    42. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen, 2014. "A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 35-57, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucas, Sterenn & Salladarré, Frédéric & Brécard, Dorothée, 2018. "Green consumption and peer effects: Does it work for seafood products?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 44-55.
    2. Sterenn Lucas & Louis-Georges Soler & Xavier Irz & Didier D. Gascuel & Joël Aubin & Thomas Cloâtre, 2021. "The environmental impact of the consumption of fishery and aquaculture products in France," Post-Print hal-03192691, HAL.
    3. Davide Menozzi & Thong Tien Nguyen & Giovanni Sogari & Dimitar Taskov & Sterenn Lucas & José Luis Santiago Castro-Rial & Cristina Mora, 2020. "Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Fish Products with Health and Environmental Labels: Evidence from Five European Countries," Post-Print hal-02935812, HAL.
    4. John C. Whitehead & O. Ashton Morgan & William L. Huth, 2018. "Convergent validity of stated preference methods to estimate willingness-to-pay for seafood traceability: The case of Gulf of Mexico oysters," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(1), pages 326-335.
    5. Yuting Cui & Raphael Lissillour & Juraj Chebeň & Drahoslav Lančarič & Chunlin Duan, 2022. "The position of financial prudence, social influence, and environmental satisfaction in the sustainable consumption behavioural model: Cross‐market intergenerational investigation during the Covid‐19 ," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(4), pages 996-1020, July.
    6. Lucas, Sterenn & Soler, Louis-Georges & Rouvin, Etienne, 2020. "Success factors of innovations," Working Papers 302471, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    7. Lucas, Sterenn & Soler, Louis-Georges & Revoredo-Giha, Cesar, 2021. "Trend analysis of sustainability claims: The European fisheries and aquaculture markets case," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    8. Jiarong Shi & Zihao Jiang, 2023. "Willingness to pay a premium price for green products: does a reference group matter?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8699-8727, August.
    9. Deely, John & Hynes, Stephen & Barquín, José & Burgess, Diane & Álvarez-Martínez, Jose Manuel & Silió, Ana & Finney, Graham, 2022. "Are consumers willing to pay for beef that has been produced without the use of uncontrolled burning methods? A contingent valuation study in North-West Spain," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 577-590.
    10. An Thinh Nguyen & Van Dinh Ha & Huy Kien Ngo & Ngoc Anh Le & Phuong Mai Khong & Ngoc Tram Thi Do & Minh Thuan Trinh & Tuan Dat Nguyen & Tran Quoc Khanh Ngo & Linh Chi Vu & My Luong Thi Do & Anh Tu Le , 2023. "Understanding the Importance of Eco-Labeling for Organic Foods at UNESCO Biosphere Reserves: A Case Study of the Cocoa Powder at the Dong Nai, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-21, June.
    11. Roheim, Cathy A. & Zhang, Dengjun, 2018. "Sustainability certification and product substitutability: Evidence from the seafood market," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 92-100.
    12. Jianhua Wang & Chenchen Yang & Wanglin Ma & Jianjun Tang, 2020. "Risk preference, trust, and willingness-to-accept subsidies for pro-environmental production: an investigation of hog farmers in China," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(3), pages 405-431, July.

    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. Lucas, Sterenn & Salladarré, Frédéric & Brécard, Dorothée, 2018. "Green consumption and peer effects: Does it work for seafood products?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 44-55.
    2. Schwarzinger, Michaël & Carrat, Fabrice & Luchini, Stéphane, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question": Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 873-884, July.
    3. Genius, Margarita & Strazzera, Elisabetta, 2011. "Can unbiased be tighter? Assessment of methods to reduce the bias-variance trade-off in WTP estimation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 293-314, January.
    4. Michaël Schwarzinger & Fabrice Carrat & Stéphane Luchini, 2009. ""If you have the flu symptoms, your asymptomatic spouse may better answer the willingness-to-pay question". Evidence from a double-bounded dichotomous choice model with heterogeneous anchori," Post-Print inserm-00636179, HAL.
    5. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Romain Craste & Bengt Kriström & Pere Riera, 2014. "Non-market valuation in France: An overview of the research activity," Working Papers hal-01087365, HAL.
    6. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    7. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    8. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2008. "Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(4), pages 700-711, July.
    9. Kang, Heechan & Haab, Timothy C. & Interis, Matthew G., 2013. "Identifying inconsistent responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation with follow-up questions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 396-411.
    10. Satoshi Yamazaki & Steven Rust & Sarah Jennings & Jeremy Lyle & Sven Frijlink, 2013. "Valuing recreational fishing in Tasmania and assessment of response bias in contingent valuation," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 57(2), pages 193-213, April.
    11. Marcella Veronesi & Anna Alberini & Joseph Cooper, 2011. "Implications of Bid Design and Willingness-To-Pay Distribution for Starting Point Bias in Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(2), pages 199-215, June.
    12. Mónica Pérez-Ramírez & Marco A. Almendarez-Hernández & Gerzaín Avilés-Polanco & Luis F. Beltrán-Morales, 2015. "Consumer Acceptance of Eco-Labeled Fish: A Mexican Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-18, April.
    13. Flachaire, Emmanuel & Hollard, Guillaume, 2007. "Starting point bias and respondent uncertainty in dichotomous choice contingent valuation surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 183-194, September.
    14. Sergio Vitale & Federica Biondo & Cristina Giosuè & Gioacchino Bono & Charles Odilichukwu R. Okpala & Ignazio Piazza & Mario Sprovieri & Vito Pipitone, 2020. "Consumers’ Perception and Willingness to Pay for Eco-Labeled Seafood in Italian Hypermarkets," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-13, February.
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    16. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, November.
    17. Watson, Verity & Ryan, Mandy, 2007. "Exploring preference anomalies in double bounded contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 463-482, May.
    18. Day, Brett & Pinto Prades, Jose-Luis, 2010. "Ordering anomalies in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 271-285, May.
    19. Robert Fonner, 2015. "Willingness to Pay for Multiple Seafood Labels in a Niche Market," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(1), pages 51-70.
    20. Brécard Dorothée & Lucas Sterenn & Pichot Nathalie & Salladarré Frédéric, 2012. "Consumer Preferences for Eco, Health and Fair Trade Labels. An Application to Seafood Product in France," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-32, April.

    More about this item

    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:bla:agecon:v:47:y:2016:i:2:p:247-258. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iaaeeea.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.