IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i16p6405-d396589.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Willingness To Pay for Proenvironmental Attributes of Biogas Digestate-Based Potting Soil

Author

Listed:
  • Carsten Herbes

    (Institute for International Research on Sustainable Management and Renewable Energy (ISR), Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany)

  • Johannes Dahlin

    (Institute for International Research on Sustainable Management and Renewable Energy (ISR), Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Neckarsteige 6-10, 72622 Nuertingen, Germany)

  • Peter Kurz

    (BMS Marketing Research + Strategy GmbH, Landsberger Str. 487, 81241 Munich, Germany)

Abstract

Biogas from anaerobic digestion has become an important element in the renewable energy portfolio of many countries. In anaerobic digestion, digestate is produced as a byproduct. This could be used to produce fertilizers and potting soils for home gardeners substituting mineral fertilizers or peat-based products. However, this depends on consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for such products, which we investigate in this study. To this end, we conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with 507 private consumers. From the 6084 decisions made, we derived Bayesian part-worth utilities using a preference share model and so calculated the WTP for different proenvironmental attributes of potting-soil products. We also assessed the influence of proenvironmental attitudes on the WTP. We discovered five distinct consumer groups in our respondents. Some show a significant WTP for proenvironmental attributes such as “organic”, “peat free”, and “without guano”. Three descriptions of digestate as a “renewable resource”, a “fermentation residue”, or a “biogas residue” elicited three markedly different WTP responses across all classes, with “renewable resource” garnering the highest WTP and “biogas residue” the lowest. Consumers with a stronger proenvironmental attitude exhibited a higher WTP for proenvironmental attributes. Our results can help marketers of digestate-based potting soils discover suitable price points for their products and design differentiated pricing strategies across consumer groups.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6405-:d:396589
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6405/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6405/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johe, Miles H. & Bhullar, Navjot, 2016. "To buy or not to buy: The roles of self-identity, attitudes, perceived behavioral control and norms in organic consumerism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 99-105.
    2. Emberger-Klein, Agnes & Menrad, Klaus & Heider, Dominik, 2016. "Determinants of Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Fairly-produced, Locally Grown Dairy Products," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 65(02), June.
    3. 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.
    4. Vithala R. Rao, 2014. "Applied Conjoint Analysis," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-540-87753-0, September.
    5. Greg M. Allenby & Jeff Brazell & John R. Howell & Peter E. Rossi, 2014. "Valuation of Patented Product Features," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(3), pages 629-663.
    6. Timothy J. Gilbride & Peter J. Lenk & Jeff D. Brazell, 2008. "Market Share Constraints and the Loss Function in Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 995-1011, 11-12.
    7. Balcombe, Kelvin & Bradley, Dylan & Fraser, Iain & Hussein, Mohamud, 2016. "Consumer preferences regarding country of origin for multiple meat products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 49-62.
    8. 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.
    9. Neill, Clinton L. & Williams, Ryan B., 2016. "Consumer Preference For Alternative Milk Packaging: The Case Of An Inferred Environmental Attribute," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 48(3), pages 241-256, August.
    10. Scarlat, Nicolae & Dallemand, Jean-François & Fahl, Fernando, 2018. "Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 129(PA), pages 457-472.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    12. Daniel McFadden, 1986. "The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 275-297.
    13. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    14. Jeff Brazell & Christopher Diener & Ekaterina Karniouchina & William Moore & Válerie Séverin & Pierre-Francois Uldry, 2006. "The no-choice option and dual response choice designs," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 255-268, December.
    15. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    16. Zhuang, Hejun & Popkowski Leszczyc, Peter T.L. & Lin, Yuanfang, 2018. "Why is Price Dispersion Higher Online than Offline? The Impact of Retailer Type and Shopping Risk on Price Dispersion," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 136-153.
    17. Neill, Clinton Lee & Williams, Ryan B, 2015. "Consumer Preference for Alternative Milk Packaging," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196651, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Narjes, Manuel Ernesto & Lippert, Christian, 2016. "Longan fruit farmers' demand for policies aimed at conserving native pollinating bees in Northern Thailand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 58-67.
    19. Cuellar, Steven S. & Brunamonti, Marco, 2014. "Retail channel price discrimination," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 339-346.
    20. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923.
    21. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Larsen, Helle O. & Jones, Julia P.G. & Nielsen, Martin R. & Ramamonjisoa, Bruno S. & Mandimbiniaina, Rina H. & Hockley, Neal, 2017. "Qualitative and Quantitative Evidence on the True Local Welfare Costs of Forest Conservation in Madagascar: Are Discrete Choice Experiments a Valid ex ante Tool?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 478-491.
    22. Herbes, Carsten & Friege, Christian & Baldo, Davide & Mueller, Kai-Markus, 2015. "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 562-572.
    23. Gioacchino Pappalardo & Roberta Selvaggi & Jayson L. Lusk, 2019. "Procedural invariance as a result of commitment costs: evidence from an economic experiment on farmers’ willingness to pay for digestate," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(15), pages 1243-1246, September.
    24. Schumacher, K. & Krones, F. & McKenna, R. & Schultmann, F., 2019. "Public acceptance of renewable energies and energy autonomy: A comparative study in the French, German and Swiss Upper Rhine region," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 315-332.
    25. Ertz, Myriam & Karakas, Fahri & Sarigöllü, Emine, 2016. "Exploring pro-environmental behaviors of consumers: An analysis of contextual factors, attitude, and behaviors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 3971-3980.
    26. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    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. Afifi Akhiar & Felipe Guilayn & Michel Torrijos & Audrey Battimelli & Abd Halim Shamsuddin & Hélène Carrère, 2021. "Correlations between the Composition of Liquid Fraction of Full-Scale Digestates and Process Conditions," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-24, February.

    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. Johannes Dahlin & Verena Halbherr & Peter Kurz & Michael Nelles & Carsten Herbes, 2016. "Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-15, November.
    2. 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).
    3. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2017. "Fairness to dairy cows or fairness to farmers: What counts more in the preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk?," MPRA Paper 83066, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 223-239.
    5. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    6. Reema Bera & Bhargab Maitra, 2021. "Analyzing Prospective Owners’ Choice Decision towards Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in Urban India: A Stated Preference Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
    7. Sarfo, Yaw & Musshoff, Oliver & Weber, Ron & Danne, Michael, 2021. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for Digital Credit: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Madagascar," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315029, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Lüthi, Sonja & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2012. "The price of policy risk — Empirical insights from choice experiments with European photovoltaic project developers," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 1001-1011.
    9. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    10. Julia Ihli, Hanna & Chiputwa, Brian & Winter, Etti & Gassner, Anja, 2022. "Risk and time preferences for participating in forest landscape restoration: The case of coffee farmers in Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    11. Longzhong Shi & Xuan Chen & Bo Chen, 2023. "Covid‐19‐tested food labels," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 71(2), pages 203-230, June.
    12. Giacomo Giannoccaro & Ruggiero Sardaro & Rossella de Vito & Luigi Roselli & Bernardo C. de Gennaro, 2020. "Politiche di gestione della risorsa idrica sotterranea a fini irrigui. Analisi delle preferenze degli agricoltori," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(2), pages 1-27.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Schueftan, Alejandra & Aravena, Claudia & Reyes, René, 2021. "Financing energy efficiency retrofits in Chilean households: The role of financial instruments, savings and uncertainty in energy transition," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    16. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.
    17. Gandino, E., 2018. "Co-designing the solution space for rural regeneration in a new World Heritage site: A Choice Experiments approachAuthor-Name: Ferretti, V," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1077-1091.
    18. Qi Feng & J. George Shanthikumar & Mengying Xue, 2022. "Consumer Choice Models and Estimation: A Review and Extension," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(2), pages 847-867, February.
    19. Kassie, Girma T. & Zeleke, Fresenbet & Birhanu, Mulugeta Y. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Reminder Nudge, Attribute Nonattendance, and Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304208, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Rid, Wolfgang & Haider, Wolfgang & Ryffel, Andrea & Beardmore, Ben, 2018. "Visualisations in Choice Experiments: Comparing 3D Film-sequences and Still-images to Analyse Housing Development Alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 203-217.

    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:12:y:2020:i:16:p:6405-:d:396589. 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.