IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae11/114213.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Calibrate Auction-conjoint Experiment to Elicit Consumer Valuation of Sustainable Farming: Is Agro-systems Preservation Relevant?

Author

Listed:
  • Avitia, Jessica
  • Costa-Font, Montserrat
  • Gil, Jose Maria
  • Lusk, Jayson L.

Abstract

This paper analyses the role of agro-systems preservation on making food choices. It employs the “Calibrate Auction-Conjoint Valuation method” (CACM), which relates hypothetical conjoint valuation of product attributes with real market behavior using real economic incentives. The paper also allows comparing the hypothetical and nonhypothetical valuations in order to value the difference between the theoretic and the incentive-compatible WTP for a same respondent and within a single experiment. Thus the paper aims at testing for: 1) the internal consistency on people’s behavior towards sustainable agriculture, and 2) the relevance of the price attribute versus agro-ecosystems preservation for a fresh product. Results suggest that Spanish respondents’ valuation of an agricultural product highly depends on the type of system used for its production. Nevertheless, respondents mainly differ between sustainable and non sustainable production, and do not discriminate between organic and integrated systems. In addition, both the price and the protection of the environment are the most important elements taken into account when purchasing. Moreover, consumers tend to overestimate their WTP in hypothetical settings (60% of the sample). Finally, factors such as gender, respondents’ knowledge towards organic production and practices, health concerns, trust on organic marketing agents and risk perception are significant on explaining differences between individual’s hypothetical and non-hypothetical experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Avitia, Jessica & Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, Jose Maria & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A Calibrate Auction-conjoint Experiment to Elicit Consumer Valuation of Sustainable Farming: Is Agro-systems Preservation Relevant?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114213, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae11:114213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/114213
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michaelidou, Nina & Hassan, Louise M., 2010. "Modeling the factors affecting rural consumers' purchase of organic and free-range produce: A case study of consumers' from the Island of Arran in Scotland, UK," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 130-139, April.
    2. Michael Burton & Dan Rigby & Trevor Young, 2001. "Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 28(4), pages 479-498, December.
    3. Lusk, Jayson L. & Pruitt, J.R. & Norwood, Bailey, 2006. "External validity of a framed field experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 285-290, November.
    4. repec:feb:artefa:0067 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Alfnes, Frode & Guttormsen, Atle G. & Steine, Gro & Kolstad, Kari, 2005. "Consumers' Willingness To Pay For The Color Of Salmon:A Choice Experiment With Real Economic Incentives," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19126, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. Carlsson, Fredrik & Martinsson, Peter, 2001. "Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 179-192, March.
    8. Maynard, Leigh J. & Hartell, Jason G. & Meyer, A. Lee & Hao, Jianqiang, 2004. "An experimental approach to valuing new differentiated products," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 31(2-3), pages 317-325, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Lusk,Jayson L. & Shogren,Jason F., 2007. "Experimental Auctions," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521671248.
    11. Jay R. Corrigan & Dinah Pura T. Depositario & Rodolfo M. Nayga & Ximing Wu & Tiffany P. Laude, 2006. "Comparing Open-Ended Choice Experiments and Experimental Auctions: An Application to Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(3), pages 837-853.
    12. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 80-94, July.
    13. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    14. Deacue Fields & Walt Prevatt, 2008. "An Incentive Compatible Conjoint Ranking Mechanism," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(2), pages 487-498.
    15. Hamilton, Stephen F. & Zilberman, David, 2006. "Green markets, eco-certification, and equilibrium fraud," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 627-644, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:eaae11:114213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.