IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i23p6742-d291683.html

Consumers Demand for Social Farming Products: An Analysis with Discrete Choice Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Tiziano Tempesta

    (Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy)

  • Daniel Vecchiato

    (Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy)

  • Federico Nassivera

    (Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy)

  • Maria Bugatti

    (Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padova, 35020 Legnaro (PD), Italy)

  • Biancamaria Torquati

    (Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Perugia, 06123 Perugia, Italy)

Abstract

This paper analyses the demand for social farming (SF) products. In particular, we investigate the preferences of consumers who buy their products from large retailers, rather than from solidarity purchasing groups or other niche markets using a sample of 225 consumers. In this regard, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was carried out to estimate the willingness to pay (WTP) a premium price for the purchase of a common product (i.e., eggs) from farms that employ disabled people. The attributes considered in our DCE design are the employment of disabled people and two additional attributes which may have ethical implications for the choices. The results indicate that consumers are interested in buying SF products, with about 74% of the sample willing to buy the eggs produced by social farms and the average WTP being equal to €1.36 for a pack of six eggs. Moreover, the average WTP for the use of labour of disabled people attribute amounted to €0.69 for a pack of six eggs.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato & Federico Nassivera & Maria Bugatti & Biancamaria Torquati, 2019. "Consumers Demand for Social Farming Products: An Analysis with Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6742-:d:291683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6742/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/23/6742/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffery Bray & Nick Johns & David Kilburn, 2011. "An Exploratory Study into the Factors Impeding Ethical Consumption," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 98(4), pages 597-608, February.
    2. Ivana Bassi & Federico Nassivera & Lucia Piani, 2016. "Social farming: a proposal to explore the effects of structural and relational variables on social farm results," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Stevens, Thomas H., 2005. "Can Stated Preference Valuations Help Improve Environmental Decision Making?," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 20(3), pages 1-5.
    4. Nick Hanley & Robert Wright & Vic Adamowicz, 1998. "Using Choice Experiments to Value the Environment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 413-428, April.
    5. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2011. "Animal Welfare and Eggs – Cheap Talk or Money on the Counter?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 565-584, September.
    6. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    7. Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Stephan Zielke, 2017. "Can't Buy Me Green? A Review of Consumer Perceptions of and Behavior Toward the Price of Organic Food," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 211-251, March.
    8. Michal Carrington & Benjamin Neville & Gregory Whitwell, 2010. "Why Ethical Consumers Don’t Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 139-158, November.
    9. James Murphy & P. Allen & Thomas Stevens & Darryl Weatherhead, 2005. "A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 30(3), pages 313-325, March.
    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. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, Enero-Abr.
    12. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    13. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    14. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    15. Rolfe, John, 1999. "Ethical Rules and the Demand for Free Range Eggs," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 187-206, September.
    16. Francesca Gerini & Frode Alfnes & Alexander Schjøll, 2016. "Organic- and Animal Welfare-labelled Eggs: Competing for the Same Consumers?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 471-490, June.
    17. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Barton, David N., 2013. "Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 235-245.
    18. Carbone, Anna & Gaito, Marco & Senni, Saverio, 2006. "Consumers' attitudes toward ethical food: Evidence from social farming in Italy," 98th Seminar, June 29-July 2, 2006, Chania, Crete, Greece 10029, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    20. Schmit, T.M. & Gómez, M.I., 2011. "Developing viable farmers markets in rural communities: An investigation of vendor performance using objective and subjective valuations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 119-127, April.
    21. Jens Hainmueller & Michael J. Hiscox & Sandra Sequeira, 2015. "Consumer Demand for Fair Trade: Evidence from a Multistore Field Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(2), pages 242-256, May.
    22. Biancamaria Torquati & Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato & Sonia Venanzi, 2018. "Tasty or Sustainable? The Effect of Product Sensory Experience on a Sustainable New Food Product: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments on Chianina Tinned Beef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    23. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth, 2019. "Foundations of Stated Preference Elicitation: Consumer Behavior and Choice-based Conjoint Analysis," Foundations and Trends(R) in Econometrics, now publishers, vol. 10(1-2), pages 1-144, January.
    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. Antoni F. Tulla & Ana Vera & Carles Guirado & Natàlia Valldeperas, 2020. "The Return on Investment in Social Farming: A Strategy for Sustainable Rural Development in Rural Catalonia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-28, June.
    2. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    3. Tomáš Chovanec & Festus Onyebuchi Eze & Atif Muhammad & Jan Moudrý & Petr Bartoš & Chisenga Emmanuel Mukosha & Okechukwu George Eke, 2024. "Sustainability and Social Farming in the Czech Republic: The Impact of Selected Factors on the Employment of Disadvantaged Persons in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-18, November.

    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. 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).
    2. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato, 2019. "Analysis of the Factors that Influence Olive Oil Demand in the Veneto Region (Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Biancamaria Torquati & Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato & Sonia Venanzi, 2018. "Tasty or Sustainable? The Effect of Product Sensory Experience on a Sustainable New Food Product: An Application of Discrete Choice Experiments on Chianina Tinned Beef," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    4. Stefania Troiano & Daniel Vecchiato & Francesco Marangon & Tiziano Tempesta & Federico Nassivera, 2019. "Households’ Preferences for a New ‘Climate-Friendly’ Heating System: Does Contribution to Reducing Greenhouse Gases Matter?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-19, July.
    5. Ching-Hua Yeh & Monika Hartmann, 2021. "To Purchase or Not to Purchase? Drivers of Consumers’ Preferences for Animal Welfare in Their Meat Choice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-25, August.
    6. Gorton, Matthew & Yeh, Ching-Hua & Chatzopoulou, Elena & White, John & Tocco, Barbara & Hubbard, Carmen & Hallam, Fiona, 2023. "Consumers' willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    7. Chiadmi, Ines & Traoré, Sidnoma Abdoul Aziz & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2020. "Asian tiger mosquito far from home: Assessing the impact of invasive mosquitoes on the French Mediterranean littoral," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    8. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    9. Vecchiato, D. & Tempesta, T., 2013. "Valuing the benefits of an afforestation project in a peri-urban area with choice experiments," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 111-120.
    10. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2019. "The impact of sustainability in coffee production on consumers’ willingness to pay–new evidence from the field of ethical consumption," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 65-93, April.
    11. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    12. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    13. 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.
    14. S. Ceolotto & E. Denny, 2024. "Putting a New ‘Spin’ on Energy Information: Measuring the Impact of Reframing Energy Efficiency Information on Tumble Dryer Choices in a Multi-country Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 51-108, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    17. 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.
    18. Kitchel, Hannah & Boehm, Rebecca L. & Cash, Sean B., "undated". "Does Consumer Climate Change Knowledge and Risk Perception Influence Willingness to Pay for Climate Mitigation in Beverage Crop Production?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274067, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    20. Ekaterina Stampa & Meike Janssen & Katrin Zander, 2025. "Pasture grazing, animal welfare, and biodiversity: a latent class analysis of German consumers’ preferences for beef and milk," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 13(1), pages 1-23, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:23:p:6742-:d:291683. 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.