IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea06/21051.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Product Attributes and Consumer Willingness to Pay for Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture: Using the Choice Modeling Technique

Author

Listed:
  • Straub, Matthew O.
  • Thomassin, Paul J.

Abstract

Consumer concerns in food purchasing contain a number of elements, including food safety, environment, animal welfare, and other social issues. The purpose of this study was to examine consumer perceptions of the potential benefits of products that are produced using an environmental management system (EMS) in agriculture, and to identify those factors that influence choice. The choice modeling technique uses consumer responses (preferences) to estimate Montrealers= willingness to pay (WTP) for production practices that decrease the impacts on the environment, as well as for other potential benefits of EMS production. Results indicate that consumers are willing to pay a price premium for these environmental benefits. This could provide a justification for government to provide incentives for environmental farm management practices and support to certification and labelling programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Straub, Matthew O. & Thomassin, Paul J., 2006. "Product Attributes and Consumer Willingness to Pay for Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture: Using the Choice Modeling Technique," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21051, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea06:21051
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.21051
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/21051/files/sp06st02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.21051?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. Hanley, Nick & Mourato, Susana & Wright, Robert E, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuation?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    2. Jennifer Brown & John A. L. Cranfield & Spencer Henson, 2005. "Relating Consumer Willingness‐to‐Pay for Food Safety to Risk Tolerance: An Experimental Approach," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(2‐3), pages 249-263, June.
    3. Lin, Chung-Tung Jordan, 1995. "Demographic and Socioeconomic Influences on the Importance of Food Safety in Food Shopping," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(2), pages 190-198, October.
    4. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    5. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304.
    6. Lin, Chung-Tung Jordan, 1995. "Demographic And Socioeconomic Influences On The Importance Of Food Safety In Food Shopping," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 1-9, October.
    7. Adamowicz W. & Louviere J. & Williams M., 1994. "Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 271-292, May.
    8. Donaghy, Peter & Rolfe, John & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2003. "Consumer demands for organic and genetically modified foods," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57862, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    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. Villano, Renato & Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kewa, John & Irving, Donald, 2016. "Factors Affecting Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Good Quality Sweetpotato in Papua New Guinea," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 24, April.
    2. Camillus Abawiera Wongnaa & Faizal Adams & Richard Kwasi Bannor & Dadson Awunyo-Vitor & Isaac Mahama & Bismark Afoakwa Osei & Yaw Owusu-Ansah & Angelina Ackon, 2019. "Job creation and improved consumer health through commercialisation of tiger nut yoghurt: a willingness to pay analysis," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 9(1), pages 1-22, December.
    3. Gilles Grolleau & Naoufel Mzoughi & Alban Thomas, 2007. "What drives agrifood firms to register for an Environmental Management System?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(2), pages 233-255, June.
    4. Maples, McKenzie & Morgan, Kimberly L. & Harri, Ardian & Hood, Kenneth & Interis, Matthew, 2014. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Environmental Production Attributes in Tomatoes: A Southeastern Consumer Survey," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162504, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.

    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. 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.
    3. Vivien Foster & Susana Mourato, 2003. "Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 24(2), pages 141-160, February.
    4. Eggert, Håkan & Olsson, Björn, 2004. "Heterogeneous preferences for marine amenities: A choice experiment applied to water quality," Working Papers in Economics 126, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    5. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    6. Talpur, Musharaf & Brouwer, Roy & Koetse, Mark, 2019. "Opt-Out Forced Choice Effect in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Discrete Choice Models: A Gender Perspective," MPRA Paper 99631, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    8. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    9. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    10. Rinaldo Brau, 2008. "Demand-Driven Sustainable Tourism? A Choice Modelling Analysis," Tourism Economics, , vol. 14(4), pages 691-708, December.
    11. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    12. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    13. Schaafsma, Marije & Brouwer, Roy & Liekens, Inge & De Nocker, Leo, 2014. "Temporal stability of preferences and willingness to pay for natural areas in choice experiments: A test–retest," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 243-260.
    14. Anastassiadis, Friederike & Liebe, Ulf & Musshoff, Oliver, 2012. "Finanzielle Flexibilität In Landwirtschaftlichen Investitionsentscheidungen: Ein Discrete Choice Experiment," 52nd Annual Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, September 26-28, 2012 137142, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    15. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    17. 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.
    18. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Ozbafli, Aygul & Jenkins, Glenn P., 2016. "Estimating the willingness to pay for reliable electricity supply: A choice experiment study," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 443-452.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    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:ags:aaea06:21051. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.