IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v8y2016i11p1169-d82667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Johannes Dahlin

    (Institute for International Research on Sustainable Management and Renewable Energy (ISR), Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany
    Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 6, 18059 Rostock, Germany)

  • Verena Halbherr

    (Institute for International Research on Sustainable Management and Renewable Energy (ISR), Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany)

  • Peter Kurz

    (Department of Applied Marketing Science, TNS Deutschland GmbH, Landsberger Str. 284, 80687 Munich, Germany)

  • Michael Nelles

    (Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Rostock, Justus-von-Liebig-Weg 6, 18059 Rostock, Germany
    DBFZ Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum Gemeinnützige GmbH, Torgauer Str. 116, 04347 Leipzig, Germany)

  • Carsten Herbes

    (Institute for International Research on Sustainable Management and Renewable Energy (ISR), Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany)

Abstract

In an effort to support the long-term viability of the bioenergy industry through an end market for digestate, we investigated purchasing preferences for fertilizer product features in the home gardening market. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE), presenting 504 respondents with a total of 6048 product attribute choices in a simulated context that replicated the tradeoff decisions made in the real marketplace. We analyzed the choice data using a hierarchical Bayes estimate to generate part-worth utilities for fertilizer product attributes. We then conducted a latent class analysis to identify market segments that could be expected to respond to differentiated product design strategies. We were able to quantify both purchasing preferences for fertilizer product attributes as well as the importance of each attribute to the perceived utility of a product. We were further able to identify five distinct market segments that make clear the potential for differentiated strategies in the home gardening market. We found both negative and positive price sensitivities, with sociodemographically distinct subgroups that favored low-, mid-, and high-priced products. We also found purchasing preferences for brand status, product labeling and nutrient values. Our results provide insights that should help product managers in the biogas industry develop marketing strategies to integrate digestate into a sustainable energy production system.

Suggested Citation

  • Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:8:y:2016:i:11:p:1169-:d:82667
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1169/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/11/1169/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dawson, C.J. & Hilton, J., 2011. "Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 14-22, January.
    2. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Matthes, Jörg & Wonneberger, Anke & Schmuck, Desirée, 2014. "Consumers' green involvement and the persuasive effects of emotional versus functional ads," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(9), pages 1885-1893.
    4. Vecchiato, Daniel & Tempesta, Tiziano, 2015. "Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-179.
    5. Rommel, Jens & Sagebiel, Julian & Müller, Jakob R., 2016. "Quality uncertainty and the market for renewable energy: Evidence from German consumers," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 106-113.
    6. Greg Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John Howell & Peter Rossi, 2014. "Economic valuation of product features," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 421-456, December.
    7. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, September.
    8. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    9. Vij, Akshay & Walker, Joan L., 2014. "Preference endogeneity in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 90-105.
    10. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    11. Ziliak, Stephen T. & McCloskey, Deirdre N., 2004. "Size matters: the standard error of regressions in the American Economic Review," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 527-546, November.
    12. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    13. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    14. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    15. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    16. Shanyong Wang & Jin Fan & Dingtao Zhao & Shu Yang & Yuanguang Fu, 2016. "Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 123-143, January.
    17. Tabi, Andrea & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2014. "What makes people seal the green power deal? — Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 206-215.
    18. Ma, Chunbo & Burton, Michael, 2016. "Warm glow from green power: Evidence from Australian electricity consumers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 106-120.
    19. Deirdre N. McCloskey & Stephen T. Ziliak, 1996. "The Standard Error of Regressions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(1), pages 97-114, March.
    20. Narjes, Manuel Ernesto & Lippert, Christian, 2016. "Longan fruit farmers' demand for policies aimed at conserving native pollinating bees in Northern Thailand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 58-67.
    21. Cai, Zhen & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2013. "Consumer stated purchasing preferences and corporate social responsibility in the wood products industry: A conjoint analysis in the U.S. and China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 118-127.
    22. Guevara, C. Angelo, 2015. "Critical assessment of five methods to correct for endogeneity in discrete-choice models," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 240-254.
    23. Janssen, Meike & Hamm, Ulrich, 2014. "Governmental and private certification labels for organic food: Consumer attitudes and preferences in Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P2), pages 437-448.
    24. Herbes, Carsten & Friege, Christian & Baldo, Davide & Mueller, Kai-Markus, 2015. "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 562-572.
    25. Shanyong Wang & Jin Fan & Dingtao Zhao & Shu Yang & Yuanguang Fu, 2016. "Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 123-143, January.
    26. Friedrich-W. Wellmer & Roland W. Scholz, 2015. "The Right to Know the Geopotential of Minerals for Ensuring Food Supply Security: The Case of Phosphorus," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 19(1), pages 3-6, February.
    27. Dawson, C.J. & Hilton, J., 2011. "Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 14-22.
    28. Yoo, Jungmin & Kim, Minjeong, 2014. "The effects of online product presentation on consumer responses: A mental imagery perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 2464-2472.
    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. Dahlin, Johannes & Nelles, Michael & Herbes, Carsten, 2017. "Biogas digestate management: Evaluating the attitudes and perceptions of German gardeners towards digestate-based soil amendments," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 27-38.
    2. Zhang, Xumin & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2018. "Monetary Incentives And Eco-Friendly Residential Landscape Preferences For Florida Friendly Landscaping," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266684, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    3. Nina Tsydenova & Alethia Vázquez Morillas & Álvaro Martínez Hernández & Diana Rodríguez Soria & Camilo Wilches & Alexandra Pehlken, 2019. "Feasibility and Barriers for Anaerobic Digestion in Mexico City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Dávid Nagy & Péter Balogh & Zoltán Gabnai & József Popp & Judit Oláh & Attila Bai, 2018. "Economic Analysis of Pellet Production in Co-Digestion Biogas Plants," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Yao Jiao & Yu Yang & Hongshan Zhang, 2019. "An integration model for generating and selecting product configuration plans," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 1291-1302, March.
    7. Vondra, Marek & Máša, Vítězslav & Bobák, Petr, 2018. "The energy performance of vacuum evaporators for liquid digestate treatment in biogas plants," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 141-155.

    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. Carsten Herbes & Johannes Dahlin & Peter Kurz, 2020. "Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Herbes, Carsten & Rilling, Benedikt & MacDonald, Scott & Boutin, Nathalie & Bigerna, Simona, 2020. "Are voluntary markets effective in replacing state-led support for the expansion of renewables? – A comparative analysis of voluntary green electricity markets in the UK, Germany, France and Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    3. Dahlin, Johannes & Nelles, Michael & Herbes, Carsten, 2017. "Biogas digestate management: Evaluating the attitudes and perceptions of German gardeners towards digestate-based soil amendments," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 27-38.
    4. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.
    5. Gandino, E., 2018. "Co-designing the solution space for rural regeneration in a new World Heritage site: A Choice Experiments approachAuthor-Name: Ferretti, V," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1077-1091.
    6. Irie, Noriko & Kawahara, Naoko, 2022. "Consumer preferences for local renewable electricity production in Japan: A choice experiment," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 1171-1181.
    7. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.
    8. Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr & Pascual, Unai & Etxano, Iker, 2012. "Valuing a Natura 2000 network site to inform land use options using a discrete choice experiment: An illustration from the Basque Country," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 329-344.
    9. Krucien, Nicolas & Ryan, Mandy & Hermens, Frouke, 2017. "Visual attention in multi-attributes choices: What can eye-tracking tell us?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 251-267.
    10. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.
    11. Joan L. Walker & Moshe Ben-Akiva, 2011. "Advances in Discrete Choice: Mixture Models," Chapters, in: André de Palma & Robin Lindsey & Emile Quinet & Roger Vickerman (ed.), A Handbook of Transport Economics, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Hackbarth, André, 2018. "Attitudes, preferences, and intentions of German households concerning participation in peer-to-peer electricity trading," Reutlingen Working Papers on Marketing & Management 2019-2, Reutlingen University, ESB Business School.
    13. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    15. Martin, Inès & Vranken, Liesbet & Ugás, Roberto, 2021. "Farmers’ Preferences to Cultivate Threatened Crop Varieties: Evidence from Peru," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315216, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Domenico Carlucci & Biagia De Devitiis & Gianluca Nardone & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo, 2017. "Certification Labels Versus Convenience Formats: What Drives the Market in Aquaculture Products?," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 295-310.
    17. Kalkbrenner, Bernhard J. & Yonezawa, Koichi & Roosen, Jutta, 2017. "Consumer preferences for electricity tariffs: Does proximity matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 413-424.
    18. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    19. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    20. Dalia Streimikiene & Tomas Balezentis & Ilona Alisauskaite-Seskiene & Gintare Stankuniene & Zaneta Simanaviciene, 2019. "A Review of Willingness to Pay Studies for Climate Change Mitigation in the Energy Sector," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-38, April.

    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:8:y:2016:i:11:p:1169-:d:82667. 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.