IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/dpr/wpaper/0749.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do consumers select food products based on carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence from a buying experiment in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Keiko Aoki

Abstract

This study investigates how consumers value carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of food by conducting a choice experiment before an ecolabel is attached on some foods in Japan. Participants are asked to buy some Satsuma mandarin oranges based on price and CO2 emissions and take them home. The following results are obtained: (i) the willingness-to-pay (WTP) estimate for the reduction of 1g CO2 emissions per 100g of Satsuma mandarin oranges is 0.417 JPY; (ii) people below 30 years, who are significantly conscious about the environment, do not choose Satsuma mandarin oranges based on CO2 emissions and have less value for this; and(iii) people above 30 years, who are environmentally friendly, choose the oranges based on price and have more value for this, although this implies that they do not relate food to CO2 emissions. Thus, since whether or not people select food based on CO2 emissions differs across ages, each age group has a different approach to reducing the CO2 emissions of food.

Suggested Citation

  • Keiko Aoki, 2009. "Do consumers select food products based on carbon dioxide emissions? Evidence from a buying experiment in Japan," ISER Discussion Paper 0749, Institute of Social and Economic Research, The University of Osaka.
    • Handle: RePEc:dpr:wpaper:0749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.osaka-u.ac.jp/static/resources/docs/dp/2009/DP0749.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kruse, Jamie Brown & Thompson, Mark A., 2003. "Valuing low probability risk: survey and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 495-505, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Akter, Sonia & Brouwer, Roy & Brander, Luke & van Beukering, Pieter, 2009. "Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1858-1863, April.
    4. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A. & Donath, Holger & Asche, Frank, 2001. "Measuring Consumer Preferences For Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(01), pages 1-20, July.
    5. Loureiro, Maria L. & Lotade, Justus, 2005. "Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 129-138, April.
    6. Alfnes, Frode & Guttormsen, Atle G. & Steine, Gro & Kolstad, Kari, 2006. "Ajae Appendix: Consumers’ Willingness To Pay For The Color Of Salmon: A Choice Experiment With Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1-8, November.
    7. Gunne Grankvist & Ulf Dahlstrand & Anders Biel, 2004. "The Impact of Environmental Labelling on Consumer Preference: Negative vs. Positive Labels," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 213-230, June.
    8. Jayachandran N. Variyam & Jeffrey L. Jordan & James E. Epperson, 1990. "Preferences of Citizens for Agricultural Policies: Evidence from a National Survey," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 72(2), pages 257-267.
    9. Gro Steine & Kari Kolstad, 2006. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(4), pages 1050-1061.
    10. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    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. David Bürgin & Robert Wilken, 2022. "Increasing Consumers’ Purchase Intentions Toward Fair-Trade Products Through Partitioned Pricing," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 1015-1040, December.
    2. Wakamatsu, Hiroki & Miyata, Tsutom & Kamiyama, Ryutaro, 2016. "An Analysis of Introducing Unspawned Oysters in Japan Using a Contingent Valuation Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process," MPRA Paper 69680, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    4. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    5. Xue, Hong & Mainville, Denise Y. & You, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2009. "Nutrition Knowledge, Sensory Characteristics and Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pasture-Fed Beef," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49277, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    8. Fredrik Carlsson & Jorge García & Åsa Löfgren, 2010. "Conformity and the Demand for Environmental Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(3), pages 407-421, November.
    9. Asche, Frank & Larsen, Thomas A. & Smith, Martin D. & Sogn-Grundvåg, Geir & Young, James A., 2015. "Pricing of eco-labels with retailer heterogeneity," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 82-93.
    10. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the EuropeanUnion: experimental insights on consumers’reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 98(1-2), pages 25-54.
    11. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    12. 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).
    13. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Lusk, Jayson L., 2020. "Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    14. Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Campbell, Danny, 2014. "Behavioral implications of providing real incentives in stated choice experiments," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 102-116.
    15. 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.
    16. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    17. repec:cdl:agrebk:qt6nh0g7fg is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Hensher, David A., 2010. "Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 735-752, July.
    19. Chen, Xianwen & Alfnes , Frode & Rickertsen , Kyrre, 2015. "Labeling Farmed Seafood," Working Paper Series 10-2015, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, School of Economics and Business.
    20. Abdelradi, Fadi & Abdu, Khaled, 2015. "Evaluation of consumers' lifestyles and willingness to pay for dates: A hybrid choice model approach," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202720, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    21. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    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:dpr:wpaper:0749. 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: Librarian (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isosujp.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.