Picking Apples: Can Multi-Attribute Ecolabels Compete?
Global food markets in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere, are experiencing a rapid growth in the number of private party and government environmental labeling programs. Most current ecolabels are defined by standards related to multiple environmental practices. This study presents an analysis of consumers’ choice of food products, in this case apples with or without ecolabels, where the ecolabels present varying combinations of farm practices with implications for environmental quality. These practices include: whether or not standards are met specific to on-farm pest management; presence of stream or groundwater quality protection; presence of on-farm wildlife habitat provision; and which certifier provides the guarantee. Factors influencing consumer preferences for ecolabel attributes are evaluated as a choice-based conjoint analysis. To empirically test the effect of heterogeneity of consumers on preferences for ecolabel attributes, surveys were conducted in a stratified sample in three regions (Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Rhode Island) with a focus on sampling across shoppers at different types of markets including conventional supermarkets, farmers markets, natural food stores and food co-ops. Results show that preferences for ecolabels are most strongly driven by type of pesticide usage, in particular for non-synthetic pesticides which were identified with organic production. With an appropriate price premium, ecolabels with an alternative pest management practice and other environmental practices were preferred to conventionally produced apples. These results varied according to age and gender of respondents, and type of store at which respondents shopped.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 10 (2012)
Issue (Month): 1 (October)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.degruyter.com |
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jafio|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bjafio:v:10:y:2012:i:1:n:6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.