Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:07:57.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Eco-Certified Wood Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Kimberly L. Jensen ,
Paul M. Jakus ,
Burton C. English  and
Jamey Menard
Kimberly L. Jensen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Paul M. Jakus
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Utah State University, Logan, UT
Burton C. English
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Jamey Menard
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We use Kriström's simple spike model to assess the factors influencing consumers' willingness to pay a premium for a variety of certified wood products. A survey of over 1,600 Pennsylvania and Tennessee residents found that approximately 35% were willing to pay some positive “premium” for environmentally certified wood products. For three types of wood products (a $28.80 shelf, a $199 chair, and a $799 table), we find the estimated market premiums to be $3.74, $15.94, and $45.07, respectively.

Keywords

eco-certificationeco-labelingprice premiumspike modelsQ5Q23
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , December 2004 , pp. 617 - 626
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2004

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

Arrow, K., Solow, R., Learner, E., Portney, R., Randner, R., and Schuman, H.. “Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation.” Federal Register 58(1993):4601–14.Google Scholar
Blamey, R., Bennett, J., and Morrison, M.. “Yea-saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys.” Land Economics 75(1999):126–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, K.J., MacDonald, H.F., Cheng, H., and McCollum, D.W.. “Bid Design and Yea Saying in Single-Bounded Dichotomous-Choice Questions.” Land Economics 74(1998):49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabarle, B., Cashwell, J., Coulumbe, M., Mater, J., Stuart, W., Winthalter, D., and Hill, L.. “Forest Certification.” Journal of Forestry 93(1995):6–10.Google Scholar
Cummings, R., and Taylor, L.. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” American Economic Review 89(1999):649–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, D.Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 2000.Google Scholar
Forsyth, K., Haley, D., and Kozak, R.. “Will Consumers Pay More for Certified Wood Products?” Journal of Forestry 99(1999):18–22.Google Scholar
Greene, W.Econometric Analysis. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company, 2000.Google Scholar
Grönroos, J., and Bowyer, J.. “Assessment of the Market Potential for Environmentally Certified Wood Products in New Homes in Minneapolis/St. Paul and Chicago.” Forest Products Journal 49(1999):28–34.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, M. “Economic Contribution of Forestry to Pennsylvania.” Internet site: http://rnrext.cas.psu.edu/counties/extmap.htm (Accessed May 2002).Google Scholar
Kotchen, M., and Reifing, S.. “Do Reminders of Substitutes and Budget Constraints Influence Contingent Valuation Estimates? Another Comment.” Land Economics 75(1999):478–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriström, B. “Spike Models in Contingent Valuation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 79(1997):1013–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozanne, L., Bigsby, H., and Vlosky, R.. “Certification of Forest Management Practices: The New Zealand Customer Perspective.” New Zealand Journal of Forestry 43(1999):17–23.Google Scholar
Ozanne, L., and Vlosky, R.. “Willingness to Pay for Environmentally Certified Wood Products: A Consumer Perspective.” Forest Products Journal 47(1997):39–48.Google Scholar
Pennsylvania Hardwood Development Council. “Forest Facts.” Internet site: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Agriculture/bureaus/hardwoods/hw_facts.html (Accessed May 2002.)Google Scholar
Rametsteiner, E. “The Attitude of European Consumers Towards Forests and Forestry.” Unasylva 50,196(1999):42–28.Google Scholar
Sedjo, R.A., and Swallow, S.K.. “Voluntary Eco-Labeling and the Price Premium.” Land Economics 78(2002):272–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinazze, M., and Kant, S.. “Market Potential for Certified Forest (Wood) Products in Ontario, Canada.” Forest Chronicle 75(1999):39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, J., Ahmad, M., and Ruddell, S.. “Forest Products Certification: A Survey of Producers and Manufacturers.” Forest Products Journal 48(1998):43–52.Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. “County Population Estimates as of July 1, 1999.” Internet site: http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/counties.php (Accessed May 2002).Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. “Housing Vacancies and Homeownership Annual Statistics:2001.” Internet site: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/annual01/ann01tl3.html (Accessed May 2002).Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. “State and County Quick Facts.” Internet site: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/42000.html (Accessed May 2002).Google Scholar
USDA Forest Service. “Timber Product Output Database Retrieval System as of 1996.” Internet site: http://srsfia.usfs.msstate.edu/rpa/tpo/(Accessed May 2002).Google Scholar
Winterhalter, D., and Cassens, D.. “Telling the Sustainable Forest from the Trees.” Furniture Design and Manufacturing 65(1993):101–6.Google Scholar