IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i24p7134-d297334.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers’ Valuation of Farmers’ Varieties for Food System Diversity

Author

Listed:
  • Claudia Meier

    (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland)

  • Bernadette Oehen

    (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Ackerstrasse 113, 5070 Frick, Switzerland)

Abstract

To increase the diversity in the food system from seed to fork, participatory on-farm breeding schemes have been proposed. For participatory on-farm breeding schemes to be successful, consumers need to be willing to compensate farmers for their efforts in breeding and in diversifying their cultivation. Using vegetables as an example, we investigated whether consumers of four selected European countries liked the idea of having farmers breed their own varieties and whether they would be willing to pay a premium for farmers’ as compared to standard varieties in a supermarket setting. The data was collected in an online survey and a willingness to pay was elicited using a contingent valuation approach. After providing respondents with information about the problem (diversity loss), solution (on-farm breeding), and the benefits of farmers’ varieties, consumers’ acceptance was very high and consumers were willing to pay a small premium. Our findings suggest that farmers’ varieties can be appealing to a wide range of consumers if the appropriate information is provided, as they not only address the increasing demand for more sustainable products but also for more food diversity and tasty products. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine consumer preferences for farmers’ varieties for food system diversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Claudia Meier & Bernadette Oehen, 2019. "Consumers’ Valuation of Farmers’ Varieties for Food System Diversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-29, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7134-:d:297334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7134/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/24/7134/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Carson & Jordan Louviere, 2011. "A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(4), pages 539-559, August.
    2. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    3. Zanoli, Raffaele & Naspetti, Simona, 2002. "Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food. A means-end approach," MPRA Paper 32712, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Karl Gruber, 2017. "Agrobiodiversity: The living library," Nature, Nature, vol. 544(7651), pages 8-10, April.
    5. Helena Resano & Ana Isabel Sanjuán, 2018. "Exploring the Role of Mountain Origin and Autochthonous Breed on Urban Consumers’ Acceptability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-15, November.
    6. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2018. "Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Biing-Hwan Lin & Steven Payson & Jane Wertz, 1996. "Opinions of professional buyers toward organic produce: A case study of mid-Atlantic market for fresh tomatoes," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 89-97.
    8. Muriel C. D. Verain & Siet J. Sijtsema & Hans Dagevos & Gerrit Antonides, 2017. "Attribute Segmentation and Communication Effects on Healthy and Sustainable Consumer Diet Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-19, May.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    10. Balogh, Péter & Békési, Dániel & Gorton, Matthew & Popp, József & Lengyel, Péter, 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for traditional food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    11. Robert D. Weaver & David J. Evans & A. E. Luloff, 1992. "Pesticide use in tomato production: Consumer concerns and willingness-to-pay," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(2), pages 131-142.
    12. Emile A. Frison & Jeremy Cherfas & Toby Hodgkin, 2011. "Agricultural Biodiversity Is Essential for a Sustainable Improvement in Food and Nutrition Security," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-16, January.
    13. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van & Hoehn, John P., 1991. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing Pesticide Residues in Food: Results of a Nationwide Survey," Staff Paper Series 201044, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    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. Josephine Lauterbach & Christina Bantle, 2022. "“For More Diversity, Better Taste and My Own Health” Exploring Organic Consumers’ Purchasing Motives for Heirloom Vegetable Varieties," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Stéphan Marette, 2021. "Sustainability and Consumer Willingness to Pay for Legumes: A Laboratory Study with Lentils," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    3. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2020. "‘Warehouse’ or research centre? Analyzing public preferences for conservation, pre-breeding and characterization activities at the Czech genebank," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(5), pages 1035-1046, October.
    4. Paula Coutinho & Manuel Simões & Carlos Pereira & Teresa Paiva, 2021. "Sustainable Local Exploitation and Innovation on Meat Products Based on the Autochthonous Bovine Breed Jarmelista," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, February.
    5. Aya H. Kimura, 2021. "Pickles and agrobiodiversity: a foodway and traditional vegetable varieties in Japan," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1079-1096, December.
    6. Johannes Kotschi & Berthold Schrimpf & Ann Waters-Bayer & Bernd Horneburg, 2022. "Financing Organic Plant Breeding—New Economic Models for Seed as a Commons," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-14, August.

    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. Palma, Marco A. & Ness, Meghan L. & Anderson, David P., 2015. "Buying More than Taste? A Latent Class Analysis of Health and Prestige Determinants of Healthy Food," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202566, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Andersson, Henrik & Beaumais, Olivier & Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Hess, François-Charles & Wolff, François-Charles, 2017. "Stated preferences: a unique database composed of 1657 recent published articles in journals related to agriculture, environment, or health," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 98(3), November.
    3. Waranan Tantiwat & Christopher Gan & Wei Yang, 2021. "The Estimation of the Willingness to Pay for Air-Quality Improvement in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2018. "Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Schläpfer, Felix, 2016. "Democratic valuation (DV): Using majority voting principles to value public services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 36-42.
    6. Daniel R. Petrolia & Matthew G. Interis & Joonghyun Hwang, 2018. "Single-Choice, Repeated-Choice, and Best-Worst Scaling Elicitation Formats: Do Results Differ and by How Much?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 365-393, February.
    7. Giacomo Staffolani & Deborah Bentivoglio & Adele Finco, 2022. "Consumers’ Purchasing Determinants Towards Mountain Food Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-15, July.
    8. Ravenswaay, Eileen O. van, 1993. "Research Needs in the Valuation of Food Safety and Nutrition," Staff Paper Series 201172, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    9. Elsa Varela & Zein Kallas, 2022. "Societal preferences for the conservation of traditional pig breeds and their agroecosystems: Addressing preference heterogeneity and protest responses through deterministic allocation and scale‐exten," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 761-788, September.
    10. Richard T. Carson & Theodore Groves & John A. List, 2014. "Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 171-207.
    11. Andersson, Henrik & Hole, Arne Risa & Svensson, Mikael, 2016. "Valuation of small and multiple health risks: A critical analysis of SP data applied to food and water safety," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 41-53.
    12. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    13. Nick Hanley & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2017. "Stated Preference valuation methods: an evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy," Working Papers 2017-01, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    14. Stenger, Anne, 2000. "Experimental valuation of food safety: Application to sewage sludge," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 211-218, April.
    15. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    16. Fiona Gibson & Michael Burton, 2014. "Salt or Sludge? Exploring Preferences for Potable Water Sources," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 57(3), pages 453-476, March.
    17. Jin, Jianjun & He, Rui & Wang, Wenyu & Gong, Haozhou, 2018. "Valuing cultivated land protection: A contingent valuation and choice experiment study in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 214-219.
    18. J. Price & D. Dupont & W. Adamowicz, 2017. "As Time Goes By: Examination of Temporal Stability Across Stated Preference Question Formats," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(3), pages 643-662, November.
    19. Palma, Marco & Ness, Meghan & Anderson, David, 2015. "Prestige as a Determining Factor of Food Purchases," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196694, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    20. Ståle Navrud & Jon Strand, 2018. "Valuing Global Ecosystem Services: What Do European Experts Say? Applying the Delphi Method to Contingent Valuation of the Amazon Rainforest," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 70(1), pages 249-269, May.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:24:p:7134-:d:297334. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.