IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0251798.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating willingness-to-pay for neonicotinoid-free plants: Incorporating pro-environmental behavior in hypothetical and non-hypothetical experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Xuan Wei
  • Hayk Khachatryan
  • Alicia Rihn

Abstract

This study investigates the extent to which individuals’ perceptions and attitudes toward pesticides and pollinator related labeling influence their preferences for eco-labeled products. An incentive compatible second-price auction and a hypothetical discrete choice experiment were used to elicit individual preferences for ornamental plants grown with or without controversial (neonicotinoid) pesticides. Positive attitudes toward pollinators, neonicotinoid labeling regulations, and labeling of sustainable production methods were found to be significant predictors of individual choice behavior. Individuals with attitudes expressing concern for pollinators and agreement with mandatory labeling and disclosure of neonicotinoids, showed a stronger preference for neonicotinoid-free plants. Our results suggest that both hypothetical and non-hypothetical experiments are consistent in predicting the general direction of consumer preferences despite the elicitation mechanism. Implications for relevant stakeholders are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuan Wei & Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn, 2021. "Estimating willingness-to-pay for neonicotinoid-free plants: Incorporating pro-environmental behavior in hypothetical and non-hypothetical experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0251798
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251798
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251798
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0251798&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0251798?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cummings, Ronald G & Harrison, Glenn W & Rutstrom, E Elisabet, 1995. "Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(1), pages 260-266, March.
    2. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    3. Luchini, S. & Watson, V., 2014. "Are choice experiments reliable? Evidence from the lab," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 9-13.
    4. Syed Imran Ali Meerza & Christopher R Gustafson, 2019. "Does prior knowledge of food fraud affect consumer behavior? Evidence from an incentivized economic experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-14, December.
    5. Lusk Jayson L & Schroeder Ted C., 2006. "Auction Bids and Shopping Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-39, August.
    6. John List & Craig Gallet, 2001. "What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 241-254, November.
    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. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    2. Edoh Y. Amiran & Joni S. James Charles, 2021. "Reconciling revealed and stated measures for willingness to pay in recreation by building a probability model," Papers 2107.14343, arXiv.org.
    3. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    4. Frondel Manuel & Kutzschbauch Ole & Sommer Stephan & Traub Stefan, 2017. "Die Gerechtigkeitslücke in der Verteilung der Kosten der Energiewende auf die privaten Haushalte," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, De Gruyter, vol. 18(4), pages 335-347, November.
    5. Anna Borawska & Mariusz Borawski & Małgorzata Łatuszyńska, 2022. "Effectiveness of Electricity-Saving Communication Campaigns: Neurophysiological Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    6. Dmitriy Volinskiy & Wiktor Adamowicz & Michele Veeman, 2011. "Predicting versus testing: a conditional cross‐forecasting accuracy measure for hypothetical bias," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 429-450, July.
    7. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Felix Munoz-Garcia & Sherzod B. Akhundjanov, 2014. "Firm Preferences for Environmental Policy: Industry Uniform or Firm Specific?," Working Papers 2014-8, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    10. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    11. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    12. 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.
    13. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2007:i:1:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Eva Camacho-Cuena & Aurora García-Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís & Gerardo Sabater-Grande, 2004. "An Experimental Validation of Hypothetical WTP for a Recyclable Product," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 313-335, March.
    15. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga Jr., Rodolfo M., 2017. "When does real become consequential in non-hypothetical choice experiments?," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266327, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    17. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    18. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    19. Mark A. Andor & Manuel Frondel & Colin Vance, 2014. "Diskussionspapier: Zahlungsbereitschaft für grünen Strom – Die Kluft zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit," RWI Materialien, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, pages 27, 05.
    20. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    21. repec:zbw:rwimat:079 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Celine Michaud & Daniel Llerena & Iragael Joly, 2013. "Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0251798. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.