IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i15p9470-d878348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Information Influence Consumers’ Purchase Decisions for Environmentally Friendly Farming Produce? Evidence from China and Japan Based on Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Runan Yang

    (Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Tokyo University, 1-1-1 Yayoi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8657, Japan)

  • Katsuhito Fuyuki

    (Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Tohoku University, 468-1 Aramaki Aza Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-0845, Japan)

  • Keeni Minakshi

    (Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Tohoku University, 468-1 Aramaki Aza Aoba, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-0845, Japan)

Abstract

In this research, 600 Chinese and Japanese consumers were divided into four groups to analyze consumers’ marginal willingness to pay for environmentally friendly farming (EFF) produce. We found that Chinese consumers had high awareness of green foods, while Japanese consumers were more familiar with organic produce than specially cultivated produce, perhaps because the latter has not yet received uniform national certification in Japan. Choice experiments show that EFF produce prices and consumers’ income critically affect consumers’ decision to pay, especially in China. After each group read different formal definitions of EFF produce, Chinese consumers still preferred green food certification, whereas Japanese consumers chose specially cultivated carrots. Both displayed different ideological purchasing behaviors through added interaction terms with an increase in education. When no information was given, Japanese consumers’ purchasing decisions became more positive as their education levels rose. Possibly, highly educated Chinese consumers emphasize pragmatism, whereas Japanese consumers emphasize the connection between environmental protection and agriculture. Therefore, EFF messaging should be differentiated by region. For distributors committed to international trade in EFF products between developing and developed markets, we suggest lower costs, differentiated product messaging, and community initiatives events to enhance trade and marketing in both China and Japan.

Suggested Citation

  • Runan Yang & Katsuhito Fuyuki & Keeni Minakshi, 2022. "How Does Information Influence Consumers’ Purchase Decisions for Environmentally Friendly Farming Produce? Evidence from China and Japan Based on Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9470-:d:878348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9470/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/15/9470/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liu, Chia-Ling ‘Eunice’ & Sinkovics, Rudolf R. & Pezderka, Noemi & Haghirian, Parissa, 2012. "Determinants of Consumer Perceptions toward Mobile Advertising — A Comparison between Japan and Austria," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-32.
    2. Zeng, Yiwu & Jia, Fu & Wan, Li & Guo, Hongdong, 2017. "E-commerce in agri-food sector: a systematic literature review," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 20(4), February.
    3. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    4. Boobalan, Kirubaharan & Nachimuthu, Geetha Sulur, 2020. "Organic consumerism: A comparison between India and the USA," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Moriuchi, Emi & Takahashi, Ikuo, 2018. "An empirical investigation of the factors motivating Japanese repeat consumers to review their shopping experiences," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 381-390.
    6. Rana, Jyoti & Paul, Justin, 2017. "Consumer behavior and purchase intention for organic food: A review and research agenda," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 157-165.
    7. Madani, Fatima & Seenivasan, Satheesh & Ma, Junzhao, 2021. "Determinants of store patronage: The roles of political ideology, consumer and market characteristics," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    8. Yu, Weiping & Han, Xiaoyun & Ding, Lei & He, Mingli, 2021. "Organic food corporate image and customer co-developing behavior: The mediating role of consumer trust and purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Catarina Roseira & Sandrina Teixeira & Belem Barbosa & Rita Macedo, 2022. "How Collectivism Affects Organic Food Purchase Intention and Behavior: A Study with Norwegian and Portuguese Young Consumers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Mohd Sadiq & Mohd Adil & Justin Paul, 2021. "Does social influence turn pessimistic consumers green?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 2937-2950, November.
    3. Sadiq, Muhammad Ahsan & Rajeswari, Balasundaram & Ansari, Lubna & Danish Kirmani, Mohd, 2021. "The role of food eating values and exploratory behaviour traits in predicting intention to consume organic foods: An extended planned behaviour approach," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    4. Jianming Wang & Thuy Linh Pham & Van Thac Dang, 2020. "Environmental Consciousness and Organic Food Purchase Intention: A Moderated Mediation Model of Perceived Food Quality and Price Sensitivity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(3), pages 1-18, January.
    5. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    6. Martins, José & Costa, Catarina & Oliveira, Tiago & Gonçalves, Ramiro & Branco, Frederico, 2019. "How smartphone advertising influences consumers' purchase intention," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 378-387.
    7. Jianwen Zhang & Jacob Cherian & Yawar Abbas Sandhu & Jawad Abbas & Laura Mariana Cismas & Constantin Viorel Negrut & Lucia Negrut, 2022. "Presumption of Green Electronic Appliances Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Personal Moral Norms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-15, April.
    8. Anxin Xu & Chenwen Wei & Manhua Zheng & Lili Sun & Decong Tang, 2022. "Influence of Perceived Value on Repurchase Intention of Green Agricultural Products: From the Perspective of Multi-Group Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-17, November.
    9. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    10. Samia Ayyub & Xuhui Wang & Muhammad Asif & Rana Muhammad Ayyub, 2018. "Antecedents of Trust in Organic Foods: The Mediating Role of Food Related Personality Traits," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-17, October.
    11. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    12. Dogra, Nikhil & Adil, Mohd & Sadiq, Mohd & Dash, Ganesh & Paul, Justin, 2023. "Unraveling customer repurchase intention in OFDL context: An investigation using a hybrid technique of SEM and fsQCA," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    13. Cheung, Millissa F.Y. & To, W.M., 2019. "An extended model of value-attitude-behavior to explain Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 145-153.
    14. 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.
    15. Nadine E. van der Waal & Frans Folkvord & Rachid Azrout & Corine S. Meppelink, 2022. "Can Product Information Steer towards Sustainable and Healthy Food Choices? A Pilot Study in an Online Supermarket," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Chiara Mazzocchi & Guido Sali, 2022. "Supporting mountain agriculture through “mountain product” label: a choice experiment approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 701-723, January.
    17. Mathieu Lambotte & Stephane De Cara & Valentin Bellassen, 2020. "Once a quality-food consumer, always a quality-food consumer? Consumption patterns of organic, label rouge, and geographical indications in French scanner data," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(1), pages 147-172.
    18. Sonntag, Winnie & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: Ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    19. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    20. Bhukya, Ramulu & Paul, Justin, 2023. "Social influence research in consumer behavior: What we learned and what we need to learn? – A hybrid systematic literature review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).

    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:14:y:2022:i:15:p:9470-:d:878348. 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.