IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/apecpp/v44y2022i2p1003-1020.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer perceptions after long‐term use of alternative irrigation water: A field experiment in Israel

Author

Listed:
  • Sean F. Ellis
  • Maik Kecinski
  • Kent D. Messer
  • Clive Lipchin

Abstract

This study provides the first revealed preference estimates of Israelis' willingness to pay for produce irrigated with alternative water. Results show that Israelis prefer produce irrigated with conventional water over any type of alternative water and that their preferences for alternative water varies by type. These results indicate that there may be long‐run limits to how high consumer demand for alternative water can rise. Policymakers should be cognizant of these findings and gradually expose the public to the unavoidable future of widespread alternative water use. Increased public awareness of water scarcity and alternative water technology will encourage adoption when it is possible and necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Sean F. Ellis & Maik Kecinski & Kent D. Messer & Clive Lipchin, 2022. "Consumer perceptions after long‐term use of alternative irrigation water: A field experiment in Israel," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 1003-1020, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:apecpp:v:44:y:2022:i:2:p:1003-1020
    DOI: 10.1002/aepp.13162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13162
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/aepp.13162?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Li, Tongzhe & McCluskey, Jill J. & Messer, Kent D., 2018. "Ignorance Is Bliss? Experimental Evidence on Wine Produced from Grapes Irrigated with Recycled Water," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 100-110.
    2. Marette, Stéphan & Roosen, Jutta & Blanchemanche, Sandrine & Feinblatt-Mélèze, Eve, 2010. "Functional food, uncertainty and consumers' choices: A lab experiment with enriched yoghurts for lowering cholesterol," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 419-428, October.
    3. Whiting, Alix & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & r, Kent D. Messer & Parker, Julia, 2019. "The importance of selecting the right messenger: A framed field experiment on recycled water products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-8.
    4. Kecinski, Maik & Kerley Keisner, Deborah & Messer, Kent D. & Schulze, William D., 2016. "Stigma mitigation and the importance of redundant treatments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 44-52.
    5. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    6. Kelly Fielding & John Gardner & Zoe Leviston & Jennifer Price, 2015. "Comparing Public Perceptions of Alternative Water Sources for Potable Use: The Case of Rainwater, Stormwater, Desalinated Water, and Recycled Water," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(12), pages 4501-4518, September.
    7. Fox, John A. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Shogren, Jason F. & Kliebenstein, James B., 1996. "Experimental Methods In Consumer Preference Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 1-7, July.
    8. Damon Jones & David Molitor & Julian Reif, 2019. "What do Workplace Wellness Programs do? Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(4), pages 1747-1791.
    9. Hayes, D. J. & Fox, J. A. & Shogren, J. F., 2002. "Experts and activists: how information affects the demand for food irradiation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 185-193, April.
    10. Savchenko, Olesya M. & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & Messer, Kent D. & Xu, Huidong, 2018. "Fresh foods irrigated with recycled water: A framed field experiment on consumer responses," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 103-112.
    11. Petrolia, Daniel R., 2016. "Risk preferences, risk perceptions, and risky food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 37-48.
    12. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    13. Anna Hurlimann & Sara Dolnicar, 2016. "Public acceptance and perceptions of alternative water sources: a comparative study in nine locations," International Journal of Water Resources Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 650-673, July.
    14. John Loomis & Thomas Brown & Beatrice Lucero & George Peterson, 1997. "Evaluating the Validity of the Dichotomous Choice Question Format in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 109-123, September.
    15. P. Frykblom & Jason Shogren, 2000. "An Experimental Testing of Anchoring Effects in Discrete Choice Questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 16(3), pages 329-341, July.
    16. Anna, Petrenko, 2016. "Мaркування готової продукції як складова частина інформаційного забезпечення маркетингової діяльності підприємств овочепродуктового підкомплексу," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 2(1), March.
    17. Savchenko, Olesya M. & Li, Tongzhe & Kecinski, Maik & Messer, Kent D., 2019. "Does food processing mitigate consumers’ concerns about crops grown with recycled water?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2015. "Cognitive biases in the assimilation of scientific information on global warming and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 35-43.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:10:y:2015:i:1:p:50-63 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. J.F. Shogren & T.M. Hurley, 1999. "Experiments in Environmental Economics," Chapters, in: Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh (ed.), Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics, chapter 76, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. 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.
    22. Menegaki, Angeliki N. & Hanley, Nick & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2007. "The social acceptability and valuation of recycled water in Crete: A study of consumers' and farmers' attitudes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 7-18, April.
    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. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    2. Savchenko, Olesya M. & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & Messer, Kent D. & Xu, Huidong, 2018. "Fresh foods irrigated with recycled water: A framed field experiment on consumer responses," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 103-112.
    3. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Consumer valuation of information about food safety achieved using biotechnology: Evidence from new potato products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 82-96.
    4. Li, Tongzhe & Roy, Danielle, 2021. "“Choosing not to choose”: Preferences for various uses of recycled water," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2007:i:1:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Whiting, Alix & Kecinski, Maik & Li, Tongzhe & r, Kent D. Messer & Parker, Julia, 2019. "The importance of selecting the right messenger: A framed field experiment on recycled water products," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 1-8.
    7. Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. & Ximing Wu & Robert G. Brummett, 2007. "On the Use of Cheap Talk in New Product Valuation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 2(1), pages 1-9.
    8. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    9. Ferrier, Peyton & Peterson, Everett E. & Landes, Maurice, 2012. "Specialty Crop Access to U.S. Markets: A Case Study of Indian Mangoes," Economic Research Report 262228, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Gaynor, Joe & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Jaenicke, Edward C., 2002. "Retail Meat Managers' Profitability Expectations For Irradiated Red Meats," 2002 Annual meeting, July 28-31, Long Beach, CA 19793, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    11. Erika Allen Wolters & Brent S. Steel & Muhammed Usman Amin Siddiqi & Melissa Symmes, 2022. "Public Water Policy Knowledge and Policy Preferences in the American West," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-20, February.
    12. Kallbekken, Steffen & Kroll, Stephan & Cherry, Todd L., 2011. "Do you not like Pigou, or do you not understand him? Tax aversion and revenue recycling in the lab," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 53-64, July.
    13. Catherine C. Eckel & Cathleen Johnson & Claude Montmarquette & Christian Rojas, 2007. "Debt Aversion and the Demand for Loans for Postsecondary Education," Public Finance Review, , vol. 35(2), pages 233-262, March.
    14. Satoko Kubota & Hirotsugu Sawano & Hiroichi Kono, 2017. "Japanese consumer preferences for additive-free wine labeling," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, December.
    15. Moro, Daniele, 2008. "Market And Policy Issues In Micro-Econometric Demand Modeling," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6500, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. H. Holly Wang & Jing Yang & Na Hao, 2022. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Rice from Remediated Soil: Potential from the Public in Sustainable Soil Pollution Treatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-22, July.
    17. He, Senhui & Fletcher, Stanley M. & Rimal, Arbindra, 2004. "Factors Affecting Consumer Negative Perceptions About Beef Irradiation," 2004 Annual Meeting, February 14-18, 2004, Tulsa, Oklahoma 34672, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Lilavanichakul, Apichaya & Boecker, Andreas, 2013. "Consumer Acceptance of a New Traceability Technology: A Discrete Choice Application to Ontario Ginseng," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1-26, November.
    19. Brown, Jennifer & Cranfield, John A.L. & Henson, Spencer J., 2003. "Misassessed Risk In Consumer Valuation Of Food Safety: An Experimental Approach," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22194, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Charles Noussair & Stéphane Robin & Bernard Ruffieux, 2001. "Comportement des consommateurs face aux aliments «avec OGM» et «sans OGM»: une étude expérimentale," Économie rurale, Programme National Persée, vol. 266(1), pages 30-44.
    21. Bruner, David M. & Huth, William L. & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2014. "Consumer Valuation of Food Safety: The Case of Postharvest Processed Oysters," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 300-318, August.

    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:wly:apecpp:v:44:y:2022:i:2:p:1003-1020. 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://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2040-5804 .

    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.