IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/agrerw/v42y2013i02p275-290_00.html

Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario

Author

Listed:
  • Sackett, Hillary M.
  • Shupp, Robert
  • Tonsor, Glynn

Abstract

Building on existing work evaluating food-attribute labels, we use data collected in 2010 from a national web-based survey of 1,002 households to examine consumer inferences and valuations of food products promoted as “sustainably produced.” A best-worst scale framework was implemented to identify how consumers define “sustainably produced” and their preferences for each of the sustainable farming practices considered. The results suggest that consumers perceive farm size and local production as important elements of sustainable agriculture while economic attributes exhibit a significant amount of heterogeneity, indicating segmentation in the sample and the potential for targeted marketing.

Suggested Citation

  • Sackett, Hillary M. & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2013. "Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 275-290, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:agrerw:v:42:y:2013:i:02:p:275-290_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1068280500004378/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sackett, Hillary & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2016. "Differentiating “Sustainable” From “Organic” And “Local” Food Choices: Does Information About Certification Criteria Help Consumers?," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 4(3), pages 1-15, July.
    2. AMADOU Zakou, 2020. "Which Sustainable Development Goals and Eco-challenges Matter Most to Niger s Farmers and Herdsmen? A Best Worst Scaling Approach," Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 24(5), pages 168-174, July.
    3. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    4. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    5. Yixin Nong & Changbin Yin & Xiaoyan Yi & Jing Ren & Hsiaoping Chien, 2020. "Farmers’ Adoption Preferences for Sustainable Agriculture Practices in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-13, August.
    6. Brooks, Kathleen R. & Ellison, Brenna, 2014. "Which Livestock Production Methods Matter Most to Consumers?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 173517, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Elizabeth S. Byrd & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2018. "Presentation matters: Number of attributes presented impacts estimated preferences," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 377-389, March.
    8. PK Sarma, 2020. "Investigating Consumers Preference on Fresh Vegetables in Bangladesh: Best-Worst Scaling Approach," Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 24(1), pages 15-23, March.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q11 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis; Prices

    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:cup:agrerw:v:42:y:2013:i:02:p:275-290_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/age .

    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.