Analyzing consumers' preferences for using fresh vegetables with environmental labels

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Department of Agricultural Economics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

2 Department of Agricultural Economics, Tehran University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction
Farmers are under increasing pressure to use fewer pesticides for production and pest control. Farmers and other producers are responding to consumer concerns about pesticides by creating new marketing opportunities for products grown with environmentally friendly practices. The purpose of this study is to estimate consumers' willingness to pay for each of the information provided in the "Protective Agriculture Label" and determine the factors affecting consumers' willingness to pay. The two conservation agriculture labels designed in this study are the "How to Cultivate" label and the "Environmental Damage" label. The cultivation method label provides information about the raw materials used to produce the product, while the environmental damage label provides information about the environmental harm caused during the production process. The purpose of this study is to estimate consumers' willingness to pay for each type of information provided on the conservation agriculture labels and to determine the factors affecting consumers' willingness to pay.
Materials and Methods
 In this study, in order to analyze consumers' preferences for protective agricultural products in Mashhad, the choice experiment method was used, and conditional logit models and logit with random parameters were used to estimate its parameters. Choice experiment is a common tool for valuing environmental functions and services. The required information was obtained by completing 170 questionnaires from the consumers of Mashhad city. The analysis of collected data is done using many models, most of which have a logit form. In this study, conditional logit and logit models with random parameters have been used to investigate the effect of the characteristics of agricultural product labels on consumers' willingness to pay and to estimate the amount of willingness to pay for each of the characteristics. 
Results and Discussion
In this article, consumer preferences for protective agricultural products have been analyzed using the choice test method. For data analysis, conditional logit and logit with random parameters model were used. The results obtained from this study have shown that the characteristic accuracy of the measurement method was the highest and the label-issuing organization had the lowest willingness to pay. The variables of gender, the presence of a child in the family, and the presence of people with a specific disease in the family had a positive and significant effect, and the variable of age had a negative and significant effect on the willingness of consumers to pay. In both labels, the sign of the price variable is negative, which is in accordance with the theory of economic utility. The comparison of the calculated final effect for two labels of environment and method of cultivation has shown that, in general, the probability of choosing the label of method of cultivation is higher than the probability of choosing the label of environmental-biological damages.  In 53% of the cases, the selected option was the label of how to cultivate, and in 15% of the cases, none of the labels were selected. The amount of willingness of consumers to pay to obtain information about the way of cultivation and damage to the environment is very low. Even consumers willing to pay to obtain detailed information on production (such as the degree of water pollution with which the product was irrigated, the level of soil pollution in which the product was grown, and the type of poisons used) and environmental damage (such as contamination of groundwater with The reason for product production is not air pollution due to product production and global warming (increasing temperature due to product production). In this regard, more research is suggested in the field of reasons for the low willingness to pay of consumers.
Conclusion
Examining the willingness to pay of consumers has shown that people are willing to pay more for the accuracy of the measurement method than for the label-issuing organization. The amount of consumers' willingness to pay for the characteristics of the organization issuing the label and the accuracy of the measurement method were obtained as 5 and 17.04 Tomans, respectively, so it can be concluded that Accuracy is more important than an organization for consumers.
                                                                                                                                      

Keywords

Main Subjects

©2023 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

References

  1. Abolhassani, , Baiani, A., Shahnoshi,N., & Mohammadi,H. (2017). Estimating the economic value of Naharkhoran Park's recreation facilities and services using the choice experiment method. Journal of Natural Environment, 70(4), 799-812.
  2. Adamowicz, W. L., Boxall, P., Williams, M., & Louviere, J. (1998). Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use value: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 64-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3180269
  3. Aoki, K., Akai, K., & Ujiie, K. (2017). A choice Experiment to Compare preferences for rice in Thailand and japan: the impact of origin sustainability and taste. Food Quality and Prefernces, 56, 274-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.001
  4. Bagherzadeh, A. (2006). Organic farming. Analytical report of Tehran Institute of Agricultural Economy Research and Planning. Ministry of Agriculture. (In Persian)
  5. Banovic, M., Reinders, M. J., Claret, A., Guerrero, L., & Krystallis, A. (2019). A cross-cultural perspective on impact of health and nutrition claims, country-of-origin and eco-label on consumer choice of new aquaculture products. Food Research International, 123, 36-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.04.031
  6. Barghi, H., Hasani nrzhad, A., & Shayan, M. (2017). Evaluation of the effects of agricultural chemicals on the environment of villages (case study: villages of Zarin Dasht). Management of Natural Hazards (knowledge of former hazards), 4 (3), 247-262. (In Persian with English abstract) http://doi.org/22059/JHSCI.2018.248113.306
  7. Bateman, I.J., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M., Loomes, Mourato, S., Ozdemiroglu, E., Pearce, D., Sugden, J., & Swanson, J. (2002). Economic G., Evaluation with A tated Preference Techniques, a Manual, first ed. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
  8. Ben-Akiva, M. E., & Lerman, S. R. (1995). Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. http://doi.org/4236/ib.2014.64019
  9. Carson, R. T., Louviere, J. J., Anderson, D. A., Arabie, P., Bunch, D., Henisher, D. A., Johnson, R. M., Kuhfeld, W. F., Steinberg, D., Swait, J., Timmermans, H., & Wileg, J. B. (1994). Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters, 5(4), 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00999210
  10. Chen, X., Gao, Z., Swisher, M., House, L., & Zhao, X. (2018). Eco-labeling in the fresh produce market: not all environmentally friendly labels are equally valued. Ecological Economics, 154, 201-210.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.07.014
  11. Cheraghi, M., Suhrabi. M., & Shayesteh,K. (2012). Evaluation of copper and cadmium concentration in greenhouse tomatoes produced in Hamedan province in 2011. Food Hygiene, 3(4), 31-40. (In Persian with English abstract)  
  12. Demiyurek, K. (2010). Analysis of informaton systems and communication networks for organic and conventional hazelnut producers in the Samsun province of Turkey. Agricultural Systems, 103 (7), 444-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2010.04.002
  13. DeShazo, R., & Fermo, F. (2002). Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44, 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1199
  14. Golmohammadi Tolani, M (2008). Investigating the environmental problems and bottlenecks of the Mashhad river discovery. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 3(9).
  15. Grankvist, G., Dahlstrand, U., & Biel, A. (2004). The impact of environmental labelling on consumer preference: Negative vs. positive labels. Journal of Consumer Policy, 27(2), 213-230.‏ https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COPO.0000028167.54739.94
  16. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 103-123. https://doi.org/10.1086/208721
  17. Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing research: New developments and directions. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251756
  18. Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177-189. http://doi.org/1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001
  19. M.V., Horne J.E. (2000). Food labeling. The Kerr Center for sustainable Agriculture for Sustainable Agriculture Poteau, Oklahoma.2-67.
  20. Haghjo, M., Haiati, B., Mohammad rezaei, R., Pish Bahar, A., & Dashti, Gh. (2011). Factors affecting consumers potential willingness to pey a premium for safe food products (Case study: Agricultural Administration of East Azerbaijan). Journal of Agricultural Knowledge and Sustainable Production, 21(3), 105-117. (In Persian with English abstract)
  21. Han, B., Ren, S., & Bao, J. (2020). Mixed logit model based on improved nonlinear utility functions: a market shares solution method of different railway traffic modes. Sustainability, 12(4), 1406. http://doi.org/3390/su12041406
  22. Hanley, , Mourato, S., & Wright, R. (2001). Choice modeling approaches: A superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 435-462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00145
  23. Hausman, J., & McFadden, D. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica: Journal of The Econometric Society, 1219-1240.‏ https://doi.org/10.2307/1910997
  24. Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., & Greene, W.H. (2005). Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer. Cambridge: Cambridge Univerisity Press.
  25. Iranian Organic Association. (2011). Organic Agricultural, Retrieved form: Available at Web site< WWW. Iranorganic.com >.
  26. Jalili Kamjoo, S.P., Khoshakhlagh, R., Fotros, M.H., & Derakhshan, M. (2014). A new approach in estimattion of regional and non- regional visitors preferences with Zayandehrood ecosystem services: Choice Experiment Conditioanl Logit. Quarterly Eneregy Economics Review, 10(42), 1-24. (In Persian with English abstract)
  27. Jalini, M., & Dosti, F. (2011). Investigating the accumulation of nitrates in potato and tomato products. Scientific Quarterly of Environment, (50), 62-71. (In Persian with English abstract)
  28. Karimi Jashni, H., & Karimi Jashni, A. (2008). The role of agricultural activities in environmental degradation. Regional conference on agriculture based on growth and development, 1-12. (In Persian with English abstract)
  29. Keshavarz, F., Allahyari, M., Azarmi Sesari, Z., & Khayati, M. (2010). Effective factors on non-acceptance of cultivation of high-yielding rice varieties among Guilan province farmers. Journal of Agricultural Promotion and Education, 4, 99-122. (In Persian with English abstract)
  30. Kontoleon, A. (2003).  Essays on non market valuation of environmental resources; policy and technical explorations. University of London, University College London (United Kingdom).‏
  31. Krystallis, A., & Chryssohoidis, G. (2005). Consumers' willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. British Food Journal, 107(5), 320-343.‏ http://doi.org/1108/00070700510596901
  32. Li, Y. (2020). Competing eco-labels and product market competition. Resource and Energy Economics, 60, 101149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2020.101149
  33. Latifi, S., Raheli, H., Yadavar, H., & Saadi, H. (2017). Identification and analysis of drivers of conservation agriculture development in Iran. Extension Sciences and Agricultural Education of Iran, 13(1), 105-125. 1001.1.20081758.1396.13.1.8.6
  34. Loureiro, M. L., McCluskey, J. J., & Mittelhammer, R. C. (2002). Will consumers pay a premium for eco‐labeled apples?Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36(2), 203-219. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23859924
  35. Louviere, J. J., & Hensher, D. A. (1982). On the design and analysis of simulated choice or allocation experiments in travel choice modeling. Transportation Research 890, 11-17. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1982/890/890-003.pdf
  36. Louviere, J.J., & Woodworth, G. (1983). Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: an approach based on aggregate data. Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 350-367. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151440
  37. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., & Swait, J. D. (2000). Stated choice methods: analysis and applications, Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831
  38. Lusk, J. L., & Hudson, D. (2004). Willingness‐to‐pay estimates and their relevance to agribusiness decision making.Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 26(2), 152-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2004.00168.x
  39. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and Qualitative Variable in Econometrics. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810176
  40. Mahdavi, A., Koocheki, A., & Rezvani Moghaddam, P. (2004). Sustainability indicators: Tools for    quantifying concepts of ecological agriculture. Environmental Sciences, 1(4),1-10. (In Persian with English abstract)
  41. Malek Saeedi, H., Rezaei Moghadan, K., & Ajili, A. (2010). The study of Fars province agricultural Jihad experts in the field of organic agriculture. Extension Sciences and Agricultural Education of Iran, 6(9), 49-62. (In Persian with English abstract)
  42. Marette, S., Messéan, A., & Millet, G. (2012). Consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-friendly apples under different labels: Evidences from a lab experiment. Food Policy, 37(2): 151-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2011.12.001
  43. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontier in Econometrics, Zarembka, P. (ed.) New York: Academic Press, 105-142. http://doi.org/ 4236/health.2017.91008
  44. Meier-ploeger, A. (2005). Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human Health. NJF Seminar Report. Vol. 1, No.1.
  45. Mohammadi, Z., & Babaei,Y. (2015) . The need to control the pollution of the effluents entering the Kashf River of Mashhad and providing appropriate solutions. National Water Conference with Clean Water Approach, 1-8. (In Persian with English abstract)  https://civilica.com/doc/104476/
  46. Molavi, F., DehghaN, H., Alizade, A., & Hosseini Fatemi,M. (2019). Investigating the pollution status of the Kashf River with the approach of protozoan parasites. Journal of Experimental Animal Biology,1(8), 29-38.
  47. Morrison, M., Bennet, J., & Blamey, R. (1999). Valuing improved wetland quality using choice modeling. Water Resources Research, 35(9), 2805-2814.  https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900020
  48. Nasimi, A. (2000). The position of modern agriculture in the sustainable development of Iran's agriculture. Zaytoun Magazine, 164, 48-55. (In Persian with English abstract)
  49. Owusu-Sekyere, E., Owusu, v., & Jordaan, H. (2014). Consumer preferences and willingness to pey for beef food safety assurance labels in the Kumasi Metropolis and Sunyani Municipality of Ghana. Food Control, 46, 152-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.05.019
  50. Pooralijan, M., Amirnezhad, H., Mojaverian, M., & Taslimi, M. (2021). Investigating the willingness of consumers to pay for organic oranges using the choice experiment method in the city of Sari. Agricultural Economics and Development, 28(4), 93-116. (In Persian with English abstract) http://doi.org/10.30490/AEAD.2021.299602.1081
  51. Rashid, N. R. N. A. (2009). Awareness of eco-label in Malaysia’s green marketing initiative. International Journal of Business and Management, 4(8), 132-141. http://doi.org/5539/ijbm.v4n8p132
  52. Ranjbar,G.H., Najafpoor,A., & Dehghan, A. (2020). Investigating the concentration of heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury) in the vegetables of farms near the Kashf River of Mashhad in 2017. Journal of Research in Environmental Health, 2(6). 107-116. https://doi.org/10.22038/jreh.2020.43163.1322
  53. Ryan, M. (1999). Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to invitro fertilisation. Social Science & Medicine, 48 (4), 535-546. http:/doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00374-8
  54. Salehnia, M., Hayati, B., Ghahremanzadeh, M., & Molaei. M. (2015). Estimating the value of improvement in environmental situation of Urmia Lake using choice experiment. International Journal of Agricultural Mnagement and Development (IJAMAD), 27(4), 267-276. (In Persian with English abstract)
  55. Sharzehi, G., & Jalili Kamjoo, S.P. (2013). Choice modeling: a new approach to valuation of environmental commodity (case study: Ganjnameh Hamedan). Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, 13(3), 1-18. (In Persian with English abstract)
  56. Stobbelaar, D. J., Casimir, G., Borghuis, J., Marks, I., Meijer, L., & Zebeda, S. (2006). Adolescents’ attitudes towards organic food: a survey of 15- to 16-year old school children. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(4), 349-356.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2006.00560.x
  57. Taefe Sultan Khani, A. (2010). Organic agriculture and its role in creating food security. New Food Technology Magazine, 16, 34-35. (In Persian with English abstract)
  58. Tonukbar, P., Amirnezhad, H., & Shirzadi, S. (2021). Investigating rice consumers preferences for peyment ecosystem services of Sefidrood River. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 35(2), 121-132. (In Persian with English abstract) http://doi.org/22067/JEAD.2021.67055.0
  59. Train, K.E. (2000). Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics, 74, 230–239.
  60. Waldman, K.B., Ortega, D.L., Richardson, R.B., & Snapp, S.S. (2017). Estimating demand for perennial pigeon pea in Malawi using choice experiments. Ecological Economics, 131, 222-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.09.006
  61. Willer, H., and Lernoud, J. (2017). The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2017(pp. 1-336). Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FiBL and IFOAM-Organics International.‏ available online at: https://shop.fibl.org/chde/3503-organic-world-2017.html
  62. Xu, P., Zeng, Y., Fong, Q., Lone, T., & Liu, Y. (2012). Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for green-and eco-labeled seafood. Food Control, 28(1), 74-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.04.008

 

Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 08 February 2023
  • Revise Date: 30 May 2023
  • Accept Date: 06 June 2023
  • First Publish Date: 06 June 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics