IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i3p592-d200184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Environmental Beliefs Affect Consumer Willingness to Pay for the Greenness Premium of Low-Carbon Agricultural Products in China: Theoretical Model and Survey-based Evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Shihu Zhong

    (School of Public Economics and Administration, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Shanghai 200433, China)

  • Jie Chen

    (China Institute for Urban Governance (CIUG) & School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU), China)

Abstract

The increase in the supply of low-carbon agricultural products is crucial to reduce carbon emissions, but the production of such products incurs additional input costs and thus the crux of the low-carbon agricultural products market development lies in how such cost can be shared in a reasonable manner. The increase of consumer willingness to pay and the premium level that consumers would pay for green products hold the key to address this challenge. For that reason, this paper first constructs a behavioral game model to explore how environmental beliefs would affect consumer willingness to pay for the greenness premium. Then, the paper proceeds with empirical analyses on factors influencing consumer willingness to pay for the greenness premium by using micro-survey data of Chinese consumers when facing the choices of low-carbon rice in the cities of central China. The empirical research suggests that, although the average greenness premium that Chinese consumers are willing to pay for low-carbon agricultural products is low, the greenness premium will be stronger when consumers have higher environmental beliefs. We also find the impacts of environmental beliefs on the willingness to pay as well as the greenness premium levels that consumers are willing to pay for low-carbon agricultural products increase with education attainment and family income, but do not change with age. Findings in this study carry several important policy implications. To encourage green consumption that facilitates green production, the government should devote attempts to promote consumers’ environmental beliefs and also apply differentiated public policy that targeting at different types of consumers.

Suggested Citation

  • Shihu Zhong & Jie Chen, 2019. "How Environmental Beliefs Affect Consumer Willingness to Pay for the Greenness Premium of Low-Carbon Agricultural Products in China: Theoretical Model and Survey-based Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:3:p:592-:d:200184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/592/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/3/592/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Winand Emons, 1997. "Credence Goods and Fraudelent Experts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(1), pages 107-119, Spring.
    2. Jill E. Hobbs & DeeVon Bailey & David L. Dickinson & Morteza Haghiri, 2005. "Traceability in the Canadian Red Meat Sector: Do Consumers Care?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 47-65, March.
    3. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bard & Ann Fisher, 1999. "Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 461-471, June.
    4. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    5. Kai Xiong & Fanbin Kong & Ning Zhang & Ni Lei & Chuanwang Sun, 2018. "Analysis of the Factors Influencing Willingness to Pay and Payout Level for Ecological Environment Improvement of the Ganjiang River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Gadenne, David & Sharma, Bishnu & Kerr, Don & Smith, Tim, 2011. "The influence of consumers' environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviours," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7684-7694.
    7. Gadema, Zaina & Oglethorpe, David, 2011. "The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: A policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 815-822.
    8. Caswell, Julie A., 1998. "Valuing the benefits and costs of improved food safety and nutrition," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(4), pages 1-16.
    9. Jerome Vanclay & John Shortiss & Scott Aulsebrook & Angus Gillespie & Ben Howell & Rhoda Johanni & Michael Maher & Kelly Mitchell & Mark Stewart & Jim Yates, 2011. "Customer Response to Carbon Labelling of Groceries," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 153-160, March.
    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. Rebecca Boehm & Hannah Kitchel & Selena Ahmed & Anaya Hall & Colin M. Orians & John Richard Stepp & Al Robbat, Jr. & Timothy S. Griffin & Sean B. Cash, 2019. "Is Agricultural Emissions Mitigation on the Menu for Tea Drinkers?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Shan Chang & Bin Hu & Xiuhong He, 2019. "Supply Chain Coordination in the Context of Green Marketing Efforts and Capacity Expansion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Khanam, Tahamina & Reiner, David M, 2022. "Evaluating gaps in knowledge, willingness and heating performance in individual preferences on household energy and climate policy: Evidence from the UK," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Zhang, Dengjun & Xie, Yifan, 2022. "Customer environmental concerns and profit margin: Evidence from manufacturing firms," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Trung-Hieu Tran & Yong Mao & Peer-Olaf Siebers, 2019. "Optimising Decarbonisation Investment for Firms towards Environmental Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-19, October.
    6. Donger Zhang & Ruixia Ji & Sang-Do Park, 2025. "Unpacking Green Consumer Behavior Among Chinese Consumers: Dual Role of Perceived Value and Greenwashing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-24, July.

    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. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Climate-Friendly Food in European Countries," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276930, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    2. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.
    3. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212609, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Lars Petersen & Jacob Hörisch & Kathleen Jacobs, 2021. "Worse is worse and better doesn't matter?: The effects of favorable and unfavorable environmental information on consumers’ willingness to pay," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(5), pages 1338-1356, October.
    5. Elofsson, Katarina & Bengtsson, Niklas & Matsdotter, Elina & Arntyr, Johan, 2016. "The impact of climate information on milk demand: Evidence from a field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 14-23.
    6. Ritzer-Angerer Petra, 2020. "Was bedeuten die Vertrauensguteigenschaften der Jahresabschlussprüfung für die Regulierung der Wirtschaftsprüferhaftung?," Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 69(2), pages 89-119, August.
    7. Sergey Belev & Olga Boldareva & Ilya Sokolov & Anna Zolotareva, 2013. "Features of the Public Procurements of Innovation Products in Russian and the World," Published Papers 166, Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy, revised 2013.
    8. Aleix Calveras & Juan‐José Ganuza, 2016. "The Role of Public Information in Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(4), pages 990-1017, December.
    9. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Climate-Friendly Food in European Countries," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    10. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211884, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Camille Chaserant & Sophie Harnay, 2013. "The regulation of quality in the market for legal services: Taking the heterogeneity of legal services seriously," European Journal of Comparative Economics, Cattaneo University (LIUC), vol. 10(2), pages 267-291, August.
    12. Georg Meran & Reimund Schwarze, 2010. "Can minimum prices assure the quality of professional services?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 171-199, October.
    13. Jingyang Duan & Mingyang Zhang & Baodong Cheng, 2023. "Study on Consumers’ Purchase Intentions for Carbon-Labeled Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-16, January.
    14. Acquaye, Adolf A. & Yamoah, Fred A. & Feng, Kuishuang, 2015. "An integrated environmental and fairtrade labelling scheme for product supply chains," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 472-483.
    15. McCluskey, Jill J., 2000. "A Game Theoretic Approach To Organic Foods: An Analysis Of Asymmetric Information And Policy," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 29(01), pages 1-9, April.
    16. Yektansani, Kiana & Azizi, SeyedSoroosh, 2021. "Using Machine Learning to Predict Consumers’ Environmental Attitudes and Beliefs," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313902, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Vera Danilina, 2017. "Trade Integration and the Polarisation of Eco-Labelling Strategies," AMSE Working Papers 1725, Aix-Marseille School of Economics, France.
    18. Andreas Diekmann & Ben Jann & David Wyder, 2004. "Trust and Reputation in Internet Auctions," ETH Zurich Sociology Working Papers 1, ETH Zurich, Chair of Sociology, revised Oct 2007.
    19. Kandul, Serhiy & Lanz, Bruno & Reins, Evert, 2023. "Reciprocity and gift exchange in markets for credence goods," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 52-69.
    20. Holland, Steven, 2015. "Lending Credence: Motivation, Trust and Organic Certification," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205192, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:3:p:592-:d:200184. 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.