IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea11/103791.html

Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario

Author

Listed:
  • Sackett, Hillary M.
  • Shupp, Robert S.
  • Tonsor, Glynn T.

Abstract

This paper uses data collected in the summer and fall of 2010 from a national, web-based survey of 1002 households to initiate the process of examining consumer inferences and valuations of food products making "sustainably produced” claims. A Best-Worst scaling framework was implemented to identify what consumers believe “sustainably produced” labels mean and their preferences for each of the individual sustainable farming practices. The best-worst survey method forces respondents to make trade-offs by simultaneously choosing the most and least preferred attributes. The measured level of concern is then applied to a ratio scale. The ability of a firm to differentiate their product hinges critically on an accurate understanding of the perceptions consumers hold regarding what a credence labelling claim implies. Building upon existing work evaluating other food attribute labels (e.g., genetically-modified products, region of origin, use of growth hormones) and the impact of consumer inferences (e.g., implicit associations made from explicitly provided information), this work begins to address gaps in the literature regarding food products with “sustainably produced” claims.

Suggested Citation

  • Sackett, Hillary M. & Shupp, Robert S. & Tonsor, Glynn T., "undated". "Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103791, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea11:103791
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.103791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/103791/files/Best_Worst_Chapter.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.103791?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:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Sackett, Hillary & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2016. "Differentiating “Sustainable” From “Organic” And “Local” Food Choices: Does Information About Certification Criteria Help Consumers?," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 4(3), pages 1-15, July.
    3. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 18-50.
    4. AMADOU Zakou, 2020. "Which Sustainable Development Goals and Eco-challenges Matter Most to Niger s Farmers and Herdsmen? A Best Worst Scaling Approach," Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 24(5), pages 168-174, July.
    5. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    6. Yixin Nong & Changbin Yin & Xiaoyan Yi & Jing Ren & Hsiaoping Chien, 2020. "Farmers’ Adoption Preferences for Sustainable Agriculture Practices in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Brooks, Kathleen R. & Ellison, Brenna, 2014. "Which Livestock Production Methods Matter Most to Consumers?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 173517, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Elizabeth S. Byrd & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar & Benjamin M. Gramig, 2018. "Presentation matters: Number of attributes presented impacts estimated preferences," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 377-389, March.
    9. PK Sarma, 2020. "Investigating Consumers Preference on Fresh Vegetables in Bangladesh: Best-Worst Scaling Approach," Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 24(1), pages 15-23, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q01 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General - - - Sustainable Development
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q11 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Aggregate Supply and Demand Analysis; Prices

    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:aaea11:103791. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.