Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T08:27:39.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Biodegradable Containers Than for Plastic Ones? Evidence from Hypothetical Conjoint Analysis and Nonhypothetical Experimental Auctions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Chengyan Yue ,
Charles R. Hall ,
Bridget K. Behe ,
Benjamin L. Campbell ,
Jennifer H. Dennis  and
Roberto G. Lopez
Chengyan Yue
Affiliation:
Departments of Applied Economics and Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN
Charles R. Hall
Affiliation:
International Floriculture, Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Bridget K. Behe
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
Benjamin L. Campbell
Affiliation:
Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Vineland Station, Canada
Jennifer H. Dennis
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture and Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Roberto G. Lopez
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study used and compared hypothetical conjoint analysis and nonhypothetical experimental auctions to elicit floral customers' willingness to pay for biodegradable plant containers. The results of the study show that participants were willing to pay a price premium for biodegradable containers, but the premium is not the same for different types of containers. This article also shows the mixed ordered probit model generates more accurate results when analyzing the conjoint analysis Internet survey data than the ordered probit model.

Keywords

biodegradablewillingness to paymarketingcarbon footprintwaste compositiongreen industrynursery cropsfloriculture cropsD12Q13
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , November 2010 , pp. 757 - 772
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alfnes, F. “Valuing Product Attributes in Vickrey Auctions When Market Substitutes Are Available.” European Review of Agriculture Economics 36(2009): 133–49.Google Scholar
Alfnes, F., and Rickertsen, K. “European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for U.S. Beef in Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85,2(2003): 396–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, J.L., and Bettencourt, S.U. “A Conjoint Approach to Model Product Preference: The New England Market for Fresh and Frozen Salmon.” Marine Resource Economics 8,1(1993):31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, J.C., Pesek, J.D., and Pan, X. “Consumer Likelihood to Purchase Chickens with Novel Production Attributes.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 39,3(2007):581–96.Google Scholar
Biogro-Pots. Eco Friendly (2007). Internet site: www.biogrow.co.nz (Accessed August 21, 2009).Google Scholar
Botts, B. Beauty and the Plastic Beast. Chicago Tribune (2007). Internet site: www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/nearwest/chi-0610plastic_jpjun 10,l,5806552.story (Accessed October 9, 2007).Google Scholar
Boyle, K.J., Holmes, T.P., Teisl, M.F., and Roe, B. “A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83,2(2001):441–54.Google Scholar
Cummings, R.G., Harrison, G.W., and Rutstr, E.E.öm. “Homegrown Values and Hypothetical Surveys: Is the Dichotomous Choice Approach Incentive-Compatible?” The American Economic Review 85(1995):260–66.Google Scholar
Doyle, P. “The Application of Probit, Logit, and Tobit in Marketing: Review.” Journal of Business Research 5(1977):256–63.Google Scholar
Engel, U., and Potschke, M. “Willingness to Pay for the Environment: Social Structure, Value Orientations and Environmental Behavior in a Multilevel Perspective.” Innovation (Abingdon) 11,3(1998):315–32.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States (2005). Internet site: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/pubs/ex-sum05.pdf (Accessed October 11,2007).Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste: Plastics (2007). Internet site: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/plastic.htm (Accessed October 11, 2007).Google Scholar
Evans, M.R., and Hensley, D.L. “Plant Growth in Plastic, Peat, and Processed Poultry Feather Fiber Growing Containers.” HortScience 39,5(2004): 1012–14.Google Scholar
Field, D., and Gillespie, J. “Beef Producer Preferences and Purchase Decisions for Livestock Price Insurance.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40,3(2008):789–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., Hayes, D.J., and Kliebenstein, J.B. “CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998):455–65.Google Scholar
Gladwin, T.N., Kennelly, J.J., and Krause, T.-S. “Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research.” Academy of Management Review 20,4(1995):874–907.Google Scholar
GreenBeamPro, . The Real Green Industry: Plastic Alternatives (2008). Internet site: www.gmpromagazine.com/Article.aspx?article_id= 139664 (Accessed August 21, 2009).Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. Econometric Analysis. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2002.Google Scholar
Grunert, K.G., Juhl, H.J., Esbjerg, L., Jensen, B.B., Bech-Larsen, T., Brunsø, K., and Madsen, C. Øland. “Comparing Methods for Measuring Consumer Willingness to Pay for a Basic and an Improved Ready Made Soup Product.” Food Quality and Preference 20(2009):607–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guagnano, G.A., Dietz, T., and Stern, P.C. “Willingness to Pay for Public Goods: A Test of the Contribution Model.” Psychological Science 5,6(1994):411–15.Google Scholar
Hall, C, Hodges, A., and Haydu, J. Economic Impact of the Green Industry (2005). Internet site: www.utextension.utk.edu/hbin/greenimpact.html (Accessed December 12, 2009).Google Scholar
Harrison, R.W., Gillespi, J., and Fields, D. “Analysis of Cardinal and Ordinal Assumptions in Conjoint Analysis.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 34,2(2005):238–52.Google Scholar
Harrison, R.W., and Sambidi, P.R. “A Conjoint Analysis of the U.D. Broiler Complex Location Decision.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 36,3(2004):639–55.Google Scholar
Harrison, R.W., Stringer, T., and Prinyawiwatkul, W. “An Analysis of Consumer Preferences for Value-Added Seafood Products Derived from Crawfish.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 31,2(2002):57–170.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J.E., Bailey, D., Dickinson, D.L., and Haghiri, M. “Traceability in the Canadian Red Meat Sector: Do Consumers Care?” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 53,1(2005):47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., and Barbaro-Forleo, G. “Targeting Consumers Who Are Willing to Pay More for Environmentally Friendly Products.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 18,6(2001): 503–20.Google Scholar
List, J.A., and Gallet, C. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values?” Environmental and Resource Economics 20(2001):241–54.Google Scholar
List, J.A., and Shogren, J.F. “Calibration of the Difference between Actual and Hypothetical Valuations in a Field Experiment.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 37(1998): 193–205.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J. “Conjoint Analysis Modeling of Stated Preferences: A Review of Theory, Methods, Recent Developments and External Validity.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22,1(1988):93–119.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Lubick, N. “Plastics in from the Bread Basket.” Environmental Science & Technology 1,19(2007): 6639–40.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., Feldkamp, T., and Schroeder, T.C. “Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86,2(2004):389–405.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., House, L.O., Valli, C., Jaeger, S.R., Moore, M., Morrow, B., and Traill, W.B. “Effect of Information about Benefits of Biotechnology on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food: Evidence from Experimental Auctions in United States, England, and France.” European Review of Agriculture Economics 31(2004): 179–204.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C. “Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86,2(2004): 467–82.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Schroeder, T.C. “Auction Bids and Shopping Choices.” Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy 6,1(2006): 1–37.Google Scholar
Manalo, A.B., and Gempesaw, CM. “Preference for Oyster Attributes by Consumers in the U.S. Northeast.” Journal of Food Distribution Research 28,2(1997):55–63.Google Scholar
McCullough, D. “Web-Based Market Research: The Dawning of a New Age.” Direct Marketing 61,8(1998):36–38.Google Scholar
McKenzie, J. “A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75(1993):593–603.Google Scholar
Melton, B.E., Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., and Fox, J.A. “Consumer Preferences for Fresh Food Items with Multiple Quality Attributes: Evidence from an Experimental Auction of Pork Chops.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78(1996):916–23.Google Scholar
Ottman, J.A. Green Marketing: Opportunity for Innovation. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC, 1998.Google Scholar
Pearson, D., and Alison, B. “Business Opportunities in Local Food Supply Chains: an Investigation in England and Australia," Paper presented at the 83rd Annual Conference of Agricultural Economics Society, Dublin, March 30-April 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Philip, C. Supply Chain Efficiencies and the Growth of Category Management in the Horticultural Industry. Report for Nuffield Australia Farming Scholars, 2008.Google Scholar
Poe, G.L., Clark, J.E., Rondeau, D., and Schulze, W.D. “Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23(2002): 105–31.Google Scholar
Purser, R.E., Par, C., and Montuori, A. “Limits to Anthropocentrism: Toward an Ecocentric Organization Paradigm?” Academy of Management Review 20,4(1995): 1053–89.Google Scholar
Roosen, J., Fox, J.A., Hennessy, D.A., and Schreiber, A. “Consumers' Valuation of Insecticide Use Restrictions: An Application to Apples.” Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 23(1998):367–84.Google Scholar
Rozan, A., Stenger, A., and Willinger, M. “Willingness-to-Pay for Food Safety: An Experimental Investigation of Quality Certification on Bidding Behaviour.” European Review of Agriculture Economics 31,4(2004):409–25.Google Scholar
Schegelmilch, B.B.G.M. Bohlen, , and Diamantopoulos, A. “The Link between Green Purchasing Decisions and Measures of Environmental Consciousness.” European Journal of Marketing 30,5(1996):35–55.Google Scholar
Sliva, A., Nayga, R.M., Campbell, B.L., and Park, J. “On the Use of Valuation Mechanisms to Measure Consumers& Willingness to Pay for Novel Products: A Comparison of Hypothetical and Non-Hypothetical Values.” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 10,2(2007): 165–80.Google Scholar
Straugh, R.D., and Roberts, J.A. “Environmental Segmentation Alternatives: A Look at Green Consumer Behavior in the New Millennium.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 16,6(1999): 558–73.Google Scholar
Sy, H.A., Faminow, M.D., Johnson, G.V., and Crow, G. “Estimating the Values of Cattle Characteristics Using an Ordered Probit Model.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(1997):463–76.Google Scholar
Umberger, W.J., and Feuz, D.M. “The Usefulness of Experimental Auctions in Determining Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Quality Differentiated Products.” Review of Agricultural Economics 26(2004):1–16.Google Scholar
Wetering, Van de, Straw pots, P. Greenhouse Product News (2008) Internet site: www.gpnmag.com/Straw-Pots-article9153 (Accessed August 21, 2009).Google Scholar
Vickery, W. “Counterspeculation, Auctions, and Competitive Sealed Bids.” The Journal of Finance 16(1961):8–37.Google Scholar
White, J.D. “Container Ecology.” Growertalks 72,10(2009):60–63.Google Scholar
Wittink, D.R., Vriens, M., and Burhenne, W. “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis in Europe: Results and Critical Reflections.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 11(1994):41–52.Google Scholar
Yue, C, Alfnes, F., and Jensen, H.H. “Discounting Spotted Apples: Investigating Consumers' Willingness to Accept Cosmetic Damage in an Organic Product.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 14,1(2009):29–46.Google Scholar
Yue, C, and Behe, B.K. “Estimating U.S. Consumers' Choice of Floral Retail Outlets.” HortScience 43,3(2008):764–69.Google Scholar
Yue, C, and Tong, C. “Organic or Local? Investigating Consumer Preference for Fresh Produce Using a Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives.” HortScience 44,2(2009): 366–71.Google Scholar