[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/100524.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Yue, Chengyan
  • Hall, Charles R.
  • Behe, Bridget K.
  • Campbell, Benjamin L.
  • Dennis, Jennifer H.
  • Lopez, Roberto G.
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.

Suggested Citation

  • Yue, Chengyan & Hall, Charles R. & Behe, Bridget K. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Dennis, Jennifer H. & Lopez, Roberto G., 2010. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay More for Biodegradable Containers Than for Plastic Ones? Evidence from Hypothetical Conjoint Analysis and Nonhypothetical Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:100524
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.100524
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/100524/files/jaae336.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.100524?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Doyle, Peter, 1977. "The application of probit, logit, and tobit in marketing: A review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 235-248, September.
    3. Roosen, Jutta & Fox, John A. & Hennessy, David A. & Schreiber, Alan, 1998. "Consumers' Valuation Of Insecticide Use Restrictions: An Application To Apples," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 1-18, December.
    4. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lim, Teng & Massey, Ray & McCann, Laura & Canter, Timothy & Omura, Seabrook & Willett, Cammy & Roach, Alice & Key, Nigel & Dodson, Laura, 2023. "Increasing the Value of Manure for Farmers," USDA Miscellaneous 333552, United States Department of Agriculture.
    2. Sandra Notaro & Elisabetta Lovera & Alessandro Paletto, 2022. "Behaviours and attitudes of consumers towards bioplastics: An exploratory study in Italy," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(4), pages 121-135.
    3. Collart, Alba J. & Palma, Marco A., 2014. "What Motivates Individuals to Participate in Economic Experiments? A Latent Class Analysis with Unobserved Heterogeneity," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170401, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Collart, Alba J. & Palma, Marco A., 2013. "Modeling Unobserved Consumer Heterogeneity in Experimental Auctions: A Censored Random Parameters Approach," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149484, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Ahmed Seid Hassen, 2016. "Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Environmental Attributes of a Cut Flower in Ethiopia: A Choice Experiment Approach," Yildiz Social Science Review, Yildiz Technical University, vol. 2(1), pages 31-46.
    6. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    7. Chengyan Yue & Ben Campbell & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe & Jennifer Dennis & Hayk Khachatryan, 2016. "Consumer Preference for Sustainable Attributes in Plants: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 222-235, April.
    8. Morone, Piergiuseppe & Caferra, Rocco & D'Adamo, Idiano & Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Imbert, Enrica & Morone, Andrea, 2021. "Consumer willingness to pay for bio-based products: Do certifications matter?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 240(C).
    9. Clinton Amos & Anthony Allred & Lixuan Zhang, 2017. "Do Biodegradable Labels Lead to an Eco-safety Halo Effect?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 279-298, September.
    10. Chen, Kuan-Ju & Marsh, Thomas L. & Tozer, Peter, 2017. "Willingness to Pay for Strawberries Grown on Biodegradable Mulches," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258329, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Helen Arce Salazar & Leon Oerlemans, 2016. "Do We Follow the Leader or the Masses? Antecedents of the Willingness to Pay Extra for Eco-Products," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 286-314, July.
    12. Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2023. "How consequential is policy consequentiality? Evidence from online discrete choice experiment with ornamental plants," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Wensing, Joana & Caputo, Vincenzina & Carraresi, Laura & Bröring, Stefanie, 2020. "The effects of green nudges on consumer valuation of bio-based plastic packaging," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    14. McKenzie Thomas & Kimberly L. Jensen & Dayton M. Lambert & Burton C. English & Christopher D. Clark & Forbes R. Walker, 2021. "Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Potting Mix with Biochar," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, June.
    15. E. Schimmenti & A. Galati & V. Borsellino & C. Ievoli & C. Lupi & S. Tinervia, 2013. "Behaviour of consumers of conventional and organic flowers and ornamental plants in Italy," Horticultural Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 40(4), pages 162-171.
    16. Yue, Chengyan & Hugie, Kari & Watkins, Eric, 2012. "Are consumers willing to pay more for low-input turfgrasses on residential lawns? Evidence from choice experiments," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(4), pages 1-12, November.
    17. Brice ARNAUD, 2014. "Extended Producer Responsibility and Green Marketing: an Application to Packaging," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2014-04, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    18. Francesca Colantuoni & Gianni Cicia & Teresa Del Giudice & Daniel Lass & Francesco Caracciolo & Pasquale Lombardi, 2016. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Domestic Fresh Produce: Evidence from German and Italian Early Potato Markets," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 512-530, November.
    19. Brice Arnaud, 2017. "Extended Producer Responsibility and Green Marketing: An Application to Packaging," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(2), pages 285-296, June.
    20. Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk, 2019. "Text vs. logo: Does eco-label format influence consumers’ visual attention and willingness-to-pay for fruit plants? An experimental auction approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).

    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. John Fox & Jayson Lusk, 2003. "Value elicitation in laboratory and retail environments," Framed Field Experiments 00185, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Alfnes, Frode & Rickertsen, Kyrre, 2003. "Sc-X: Calibrating Stated Choice Surveys With Experimental Auction Markets," 2003 Annual Meeting, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa 25814, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Lusk, Jayson L. & Fox, John A., 2003. "Value elicitation in retail and laboratory environments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 27-34, April.
    4. Lijia Shi & Jing Xie & Zhifeng Gao, 2018. "The impact of deal†proneness on WTP estimates in incentive†aligned value elicitation methods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 353-362, May.
    5. Lusk, Jayson L. & Daniel, M. Scott & Mark, Darrell R. & Lusk, Christine L., 2001. "Alternative Calibration And Auction Institutions For Predicting Consumer Willingess To Pay For Nongenetically Modified Corn Chips," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, July.
    6. Ginger Zhe Jin & Andrew Kato & John A. List, 2010. "That’S News To Me! Information Revelation In Professional Certification Markets," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 48(1), pages 104-122, January.
    7. Richard A. Hofler & John A. List, 2004. "Valuation on the Frontier: Calibrating Actual and Hypothetical Statements of Value," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 213-221.
    8. Chavez, Daniel E. & Palma, Marco A. & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Mjelde, James W., 2020. "Product availability in discrete choice experiments with private goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    9. Pasquale Lucio Scandizzo & Maria Rita Pierleoni, 2018. "Assessing The Olympic Games: The Economic Impact And Beyond," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 649-682, July.
    10. Giles Atkinson & Sian Morse-Jones & Susana Mourato & Allan Provins, 2012. "‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 497-523, April.
    11. Marieka M. Klawitter & C. Leigh Anderson & Mary Kay Gugerty, 2013. "Savings And Personal Discount Rates In A Matched Savings Program For Low-Income Families," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(3), pages 468-485, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Janie M. Chermak & Kate Krause & David S. Brookshire & H. Stu Burness, 2013. "Moving Forward By Looking Back: Comparing Laboratory Results With Ex Ante Market Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 1035-1049, January.
    14. John A. List & Robert P. Berrens & Alok K. Bohara & Joe Kerkvliet, 2004. "Examining the Role of Social Isolation on Stated Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 741-752, June.
    15. Craig E. Landry & John A. List, 2007. "Using Ex Ante Approaches to Obtain Credible Signals for Value in Contingent Markets: Evidence from the Field," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(2), pages 420-429.
    16. Dmitriy Volinskiy & Wiktor Adamowicz & Michele Veeman, 2011. "Predicting versus testing: a conditional cross‐forecasting accuracy measure for hypothetical bias," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 429-450, July.
    17. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    18. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2013. "Experimental methods: Extra-laboratory experiments-extending the reach of experimental economics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-100.
    19. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh, 2016. "How are you? How's it going? What's up? What's happening? Nudging people to tell us how they really are," Working Papers in Economics 649, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato, 2019. "Analysis of the Factors that Influence Olive Oil Demand in the Veneto Region (Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Agricultural and Food Policy; Environmental Economics and Policy; Financial Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Marketing; Public Economics; Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness

    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:joaaec:100524. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.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.