IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i17p9779-d626163.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Eco-Labeled Products of Formosan Pangolin ( Manis pentadactyla pentadactyla ) Conservation

Author

Listed:
  • Wei-Chun Tseng

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung City 40227, Taiwan)

  • Ya-Chu Yang

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung City 40227, Taiwan)

  • Yun-Ju Chen

    (Department of Applied Economics, National Chung-Hsing University, Taichung City 40227, Taiwan)

  • Yung-Chih Chen

    (Department of Forestry, National Chung-Hsing University, 145, Xingda Rd., South Dist., Taichung City 40227, Taiwan
    The Experimental Forest, College of Bio-Resources and Agriculture, National Taiwan University, 12, Sec. 1, Qianshan Rd., Zhushan Township, Nantou County 55750, Taiwan)

Abstract

Pangolins are currently the most smuggled mammals in the world. Meanwhile, Taiwan has demonstrated the world’s first case of the use of artificial feeding to raise pangolins to adulthood. The government has also begun to cooperate with farmers in pangolin-spotted areas. Agricultural products can earn the green label once they have passed the evaluation. The challenge is that very few farms have obtained the pangolin-friendly label so far. Our hypothesis is that farmers lack the knowledge that consumers would pay additional money for products that are labeled pangolin-friendly compared to regular ones. Thus, farmers have an insufficient incentive to apply for this label. This research aims to fill this gap by providing people with the necessary knowledge. Contingent valuation with the single-bounded dichotomous choice format was used, which involved investigating 417 valid observations. We found the following: (1) customers are willing to pay about 8.06 USD for pangolin-friendly rice (an increase of 397% in relation to the mean price of rice); (2) customers are willing to pay for about 11.46 USD for pangolin-friendly tea (an increase of 179% in relation to the mean price of tea); and (3) customers are willing to pay about 25.81 USD for pangolin-friendly coffee (an increase of 509% in relation to the mean price of coffee). Our findings give farmers more incentive to conduct eco-friendly production. Consequently, the quality of agricultural products as well as the habitats of endangered pangolins improve. Thus, consumers’ health, the environment, and the future of pangolin conservation can benefit in this attempt to achieve sustainability.

Suggested Citation

  • Wei-Chun Tseng & Ya-Chu Yang & Yun-Ju Chen & Yung-Chih Chen, 2021. "Estimating the Willingness to Pay for Eco-Labeled Products of Formosan Pangolin ( Manis pentadactyla pentadactyla ) Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9779-:d:626163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9779/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9779/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "Rethinking new wines: implications of local and environmentally friendly labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 547-560.
    2. Joanna Kaczorowska & Krystyna Rejman & Ewa Halicka & Agata Szczebyło & Hanna Górska-Warsewicz, 2019. "Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Perceived Product Value and Price Expectations of Urban Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Andreas Kontoleon & Timothy Swanson, 2003. "The Willingness to Pay for Property Rights for the Giant Panda: Can a Charismatic Species Be an Instrument for Nature Conservation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 79(4), pages 483-499.
    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. 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.
    6. Tseng, Wei-Chun & Chen, Chi-Chung, 2008. "Valuing the potential economic impact of climate change on the Taiwan trout," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 282-291, April.
    7. Sabine Duvaleix & Marie Lassalas & Laure Latruffe & Vasilia Konstantidelli & Irene Tzouramani, 2020. "Adopting Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices and the Role of Quality Labels and Producer Organisations: A Qualitative Analysis Based on Two European Case Studies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Jang-Hwan Jo & Ji Yeon Yang & Taewoo Roh, 2019. "Willingness to Pay for Eco-Labeled Food in Forests: Integrated View from South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-14, November.
    9. Marette, Stéphan & Messéan, Antoine & Millet, Guy, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-friendly apples under different labels: Evidences from a lab experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 151-161.
    10. Ahyoung Yu & Seunghee Han, 2021. "Social Exclusion and Effectiveness of Self-Benefit versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals for Eco-Friendly Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-11, April.
    11. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    12. Saem Lee & Trung Thanh Nguyen & Patrick Poppenborg & Hio-Jung Shin & Thomas Koellner, 2016. "Conventional, Partially Converted and Environmentally Friendly Farming in South Korea: Profitability and Factors Affecting Farmers’ Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, July.
    13. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    14. Hobbs, Jill E. & Kerr, William A., 2006. "Consumer information, labelling and international trade in agri-food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 78-89, February.
    15. Bong-Tae Kim & Min-Kyu Lee, 2018. "Consumer Preference for Eco-Labeled Seafood in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-11, September.
    16. Chun-Chu Liu & Chu-Wei Chen & Han-Shen Chen, 2019. "Measuring Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Coffee Certification Labels in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, March.
    17. Abraben, Lane A. & Grogan, Kelly A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2017. "Organic price premium or penalty? A comparative market analysis of organic wines from Tuscany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 154-165.
    18. Higgins, Kieran & Hutchinson, W. George & Longo, Alberto, 2020. "Willingness-to-Pay for Eco-Labelled Forest Products in Northern Ireland: An Experimental Auction Approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    19. Grunert, Klaus G. & Hieke, Sophie & Wills, Josephine, 2014. "Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 177-189.
    20. Zhou, Jiehong & Liu, Qing & Mao, Rui & Yu, Xiaohua, 2017. "Habit spillovers or induced awareness: Willingness to pay for eco-labels of rice in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 62-73.
    21. Bishop, Richard C. & Heberlein, Thomas A., 1979. "Measuring Values Of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," 1979 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, Pullman, Washington 277818, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    22. Charalampia N. Anastasiou & Kiriaki M. Keramitsoglou & Nikos Kalogeras & Maria I. Tsagkaraki & Ioanna Kalatzi & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis, 2017. "Can the “Euro-Leaf” Logo Affect Consumers’ Willingness-To-Buy and Willingness-To-Pay for Organic Food and Attract Consumers’ Preferences? An Empirical Study in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    23. Asche, Frank & Larsen, Thomas A. & Smith, Martin D. & Sogn-Grundvåg, Geir & Young, James A., 2015. "Pricing of eco-labels with retailer heterogeneity," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 82-93.
    24. Richard C. Bishop & Thomas A. Heberlein, 1979. "Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 61(5), pages 926-930.
    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. Christoph Bey & Dirk C. Moosmayer, 2023. "Making a Brand Loved Rather Than Sustainable? Cosmopolitanism and Brand Love as Competing Communication Claims," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-13, 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. 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.
    2. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    3. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, September.
    4. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    5. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    6. Smith, V. Kerry & Mansfield, Carol, 1998. "Buying Time: Real and Hypothetical Offers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 209-224, November.
    7. Lee, Juyong & Cho, Youngsang, 2020. "Estimation of the usage fee for peer-to-peer electricity trading platform: The case of South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    8. Amirnejad, Hamid & Khalilian, Sadegh & Assareh, Mohammad H. & Ahmadian, Majid, 2006. "Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 665-675, July.
    9. Nesar Ahmed & Shirley Thompson & Giovanni M. Turchini, 2020. "Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1253-1267, December.
    10. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    11. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Englin, Jeffrey, 1997. "Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 296-313, July.
    12. Miguel Ángel Tobarra-González, 2015. "A new recoding method for treating protest responses in contingent valuation studies using travel cost data," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1479-1489, August.
    13. Lee, Gunwoo & Kim, Soo-Yeob & Lee, Min-Kyu, 2015. "Economic evaluation of vessel traffic service (VTS): A contingent valuation study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 149-154.
    14. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    15. Andor, Mark A. & Lange, Andreas & Sommer, Stephan, 2022. "Fairness and the support of redistributive environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    16. Zhu, Zhanguo & Zhang, Tong & Hu, Wuyang, 2023. "The accumulation and substitution effects of multi-nation certified organic and protected eco-origin food labels in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    17. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    18. Sunwoo Park & Namho Chung & Won Seok Lee, 2020. "Preserving the Culture of Jeju Haenyeo (Women Divers) as a Sustainable Tourism Resource," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Marangon, Francesco & Visintin, Francesca, 2007. "Rural landscape valuation in a cross-border region," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 84.
    20. Salvador Saz-Salazar & Miguel García-Rubio & Francisco González-Gómez & Andrés Picazo-Tadeo, 2016. "Managing Water Resources Under Conditions of Scarcity: On Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Improving Water Supply Infrastructure," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(5), pages 1723-1738, March.

    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:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9779-:d:626163. 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.