IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea09/49212.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Native and Invasive Labels Affect Consumer Willingness to Pay for Plants? Evidence from Experimental Auctions

Author

Listed:
  • Yue, Chengyan
  • Hurley, Terrance M.
  • Anderson, Neil O.

Abstract

The ultimate objective of commercial horticultural activities is to satisfy the needs of the final consumer. Consumer demand for novel plants drives the ornamental plant industry. Therefore, dispersal of native and invasive horticultural plants can be understood by considering the decisions/choices of consumers who decide which plants to purchase from retailers. In contrast to previous studies on invasive and native plants, this study uses an experimental auction to elicit consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for labeled native and invasive attributes. Results from a censored random effect model show that consumers’ WTP for plants decreases when the plants are labeled as invasive and increases when plants are labeled as native. The study finds that consumers discount an invasive attribute more for native than for non-native plants. Consumers’ sociodemographics and attitudes—age, income, gender, concern about environment, interest in plant quality, ease of care and sensitivity to price—significantly alter consumer’s WTP for native and invasive attributes. The implications of this study are notable given the consumers’ increasing concern about the environment and recent debate over sustainable labeling of plants by the horticulture industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue, Chengyan & Hurley, Terrance M. & Anderson, Neil O., 2009. "Do Native and Invasive Labels Affect Consumer Willingness to Pay for Plants? Evidence from Experimental Auctions," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49212, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea09:49212
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.49212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/49212/files/Yue%20Hurley%20and%20Andersen%20April%202009.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.49212?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moffitt, L. Joe & Osteen, Craig D., 2006. "Prioritizing Invasive Species Threats Under Uncertainty," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 41-51, April.
    2. Huffman, Wallace E. & Shogren, Jason F. & Rousu, Matthew C. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2003. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food Labels in a Market with Diverse Information: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-22, December.
    3. David Lucking-Reiley & John A. List, 2000. "Demand Reduction in Multiunit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 961-972, September.
    4. Moffitt, L. Joe & Osteen, Craig D., 2006. "Prioritizing Invasive Species Threats Under Uncertainty," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 35(1), pages 1-11, April.
    5. Adams, Damian C. & Lee, Donna J. & Bucaram, Santiago & Bwenge, Anafrida N., 2007. "The Impact of Invasive Plants on the Recreational Value of Florida's Coastal, Freshwater and Upland Natural Areas," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon 9801, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Kim, C.S. & Lee, Donna J. & Schaible, Glenn D. & Vasavada, Utpal, 2007. "Multiregional Invasive Species Management: Theory and an Application to Florida's Exotic Plants," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(Special), pages 1-14, October.
    7. Alberto Cavaliere, 2000. "Overcompliance and Voluntary Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(2), pages 195-202, October.
    8. Henrik Vetter & Kostas Karantininis, 2002. "Moral hazard, vertical integration, and public monitoring in credence goods," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 29(2), pages 271-279, June.
    9. repec:feb:framed:0052 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Lindsay Vollmar & Christopher R. McIntosh & Jonathan Bossenbroek, 2015. "Anglers' responses to bait certification regulations: the case of virus-free bait demand," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 223-237, November.
    2. Marco A. Palma & Alba J. Collart & Christopher J. Chammoun, 2015. "Information Asymmetry in Consumer Perceptions of Quality-Differentiated Food Products," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 596-612, November.
    3. E. Schimmenti & A. Galati & V. Borsellino & C. Ievoli & C. Lupi & S. Tinervia, 2013. "Behaviour of consumers of conventional and organic flowers and ornamental plants in Italy," Horticultural Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 40(4), pages 162-171.
    4. Hurley, Terrance M. & Yue, Chengyan & Anderson, Neil O., 2013. "Polarized Preferences in Homegrown Value Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Daniel Berki-Kiss & Klaus Menrad, 2019. "Consumer Preferences of Sustainability Labeled Cut Roses in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.
    6. Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2019. "Text vs. logo: Does eco-label format influence consumers’ visual attention and willingness-to-pay for fruit plants? An experimental auction approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.

    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. Lijia Shi & Lisa A. House & Zhifeng Gao, 2013. "Impact of Purchase Intentions on Full and Partial Bids in BDM Auctions: Willingness-to-pay for Organic and Local Blueberries," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 707-718, September.
    2. Shi, Lijia & House, Lisa & Gao, Zhifeng, 2012. "Consumers’ Willingness-to-pay for Organic and Local Blueberries: A Multi-store BDM Auction Controlling for Purchase Intentions," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124998, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. L. Joe Moffitt & John K. Stranlund & Craig D. Osteen, 2009. "Securing the Border from Invasives: Robust Inspections Under Severe Uncertainty," Working Papers 2009-6, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    4. repec:ken:wpaper:0801 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Rousu, Matthew C. & Beach, Robert H. & Corrigan, Jay R., 2005. "Demand Curve Shifts in Multi-Unit Auctions: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19513, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. Hurley, Terrance M. & Yue, Chengyan & Anderson, Neil O., 2013. "Polarized Preferences in Homegrown Value Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-17, August.
    7. Matthew C. Rousu & Robert H. Beach & Jay R. Corrigan, 2008. "The Effects of Selling Complements and Substitutes on Consumer Willingness to Pay: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 56(2), pages 179-194, June.
    8. List, John A, et al, 2001. "Academic Economists Behaving Badly? A Survey on Three Areas of Unethical Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(1), pages 162-170, January.
    9. repec:ags:jrapmc:122316 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Anne-Sarah Chiambretto & Hubert Stahn, 2017. "Voluntary Management of Fisheries under an Uncertain Background Legislative Threat," Working Papers halshs-01500543, HAL.
    11. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    12. Jennifer Brown & John Morgan, 2009. "How Much Is a Dollar Worth? Tipping versus Equilibrium Coexistence on Competing Online Auction Sites," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 117(4), pages 668-700, August.
    13. Karavolias, Joanna & House, Lisa A., "undated". "Impact of Producer and Use of Biotechnology on Consumer Willingness to Pay: Discounts Required for Oranges Produced with Biotechnology," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259981, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Koji Domon & Alessandro Melcarne & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2022. "Fake & original: the case of Japanese food in Southeast Asian countries," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 327-347, October.
    15. Dan Levin, 2005. "Demand Reduction in Multi-Unit Auctions: Evidence from a Sportscard Field Experiment: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 467-471, March.
    16. Christopher M. Anderson & Daniel S. Holland, 2006. "Auctions for Initial Sale of Annual Catch Entitlement," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(3), pages 333-352.
    17. Chen, Daniel L. & Schonger, Martin & Wickens, Chris, 2016. "oTree—An open-source platform for laboratory, online, and field experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 88-97.
    18. Huffman, Wallace & Rousu, M. & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 1009. "Are U.S. Consumers Tolerant of GM Foods?," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12336, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    19. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Taylor, Rebecca & Krovetz, Hannah, 2016. "Willingness to Pay for Low Water Footprint Food Choices During Drought," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9vh3x180, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    20. Bettinger, Eric & Slonim, Robert, 2006. "Using experimental economics to measure the effects of a natural educational experiment on altruism," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(8-9), pages 1625-1648, September.
    21. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    22. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Demand and Price Analysis;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:aaea09:49212. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.