The Effects of Individual Environmental Concerns on Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Plant Attributes

被引:40
|
作者
Khachatryan, Hayk [1 ,2 ]
Campbell, Ben [3 ]
Hall, Charles [4 ]
Behe, Bridget [5 ]
Yue, Chengyan [6 ,7 ]
Dennis, Jennifer [8 ,9 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Dept Food & Resource Econ, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Midflorida Res & Educ Ctr, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
[3] Univ Connecticut, Dept Agr & Resource Econ, Storrs, CT 06269 USA
[4] Texas A&M Univ, Dept Hort Sci, College Stn, TX 77843 USA
[5] Michigan State Univ, Dept Hort, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA
[6] Univ Minnesota, Dept Hort Sci, St Paul, MN 55108 USA
[7] Univ Minnesota, Dept Appl Econ, St Paul, MN 55108 USA
[8] Purdue Univ, Dept Hort & Landscape Architecture, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
[9] Purdue Univ, Dept Agr Econ, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
关键词
altruistic concerns; biospheric concerns; edible plants; egoistic concerns; environmental attributes; ornamental plants; ASSESSING CONSUMER PREFERENCES; VALUE ORIENTATIONS; BEHAVIOR; SELF;
D O I
10.21273/HORTSCI.49.1.69
中图分类号
S6 [园艺];
学科分类号
0902 ;
摘要
This study adds to the consumer choice literature by linking consumers' environmental concern (EC) orientations (egoistic, altruistic and biospheric) to willingness to pay (WTP) premiums for proenvironmental attributes. Results from a mixed-ordered probit model showed that individuals were willing to pay a premium for energy-saving production practices ($0.131), non-plastic containers such as compostable ($0.227), plantable ($0.122), and recyclable ($0.155), and locally grown plants ($0.222). Individuals scoring high on the EC scale expressed higher WTP across all attributes-$0.148 for energy-saving practices, $0.288 for locally grown plants, and $0.255, $0.143, and $0.175 for compostable, plantable, and recyclable containers, respectively. Using the results, we discuss the practical implications for nursery and garden stores (i.e., communicating product attributes related information to consumers).
引用
收藏
页码:69 / 75
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The effects of values and information on the willingness to pay for sustainability credence attributes for coffee
    Fuller, Katherine
    Grebitus, Carola
    Schmitz, Troy G.
    [J]. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2022, 53 (05) : 775 - 791
  • [22] The effects of experience versus description of attributes on willingness-to-pay for beefsteaks
    Palma, Marco A.
    Johnson, Myriah D.
    Anderson, David P.
    [J]. AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2019, 50 (02) : 129 - 137
  • [23] Willingness to Pay for Fruit Attributes: A Conjoint Analysis
    Ranasingha, R. G. S. M.
    Edirisinghe, Jagath C.
    Ratnayake, R. H. M. K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, 2019, 14 (02): : 102 - 110
  • [24] Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes
    David Hensher
    Nina Shore
    Kenneth Train
    [J]. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2005, 32 : 509 - 531
  • [25] Households' willingness to pay for water service attributes
    Hensher, D
    Shore, N
    Train, K
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2005, 32 (04): : 509 - 531
  • [26] Willingness to Pay for Fresh Strawberry Labeled with Different Sustainable Practices and Environmental Benefits
    Chen, Xuqi
    Gao, Zhifeng
    Swisher, Mickie
    Zhao, Xin
    House, Lisa
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY, VOL 128, 2015, 2015, 128 : 142 - 146
  • [27] Consumer Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Products
    Shah, Prerna
    Yang, Janet Z.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNICATION-A JOURNAL OF NATURE AND CULTURE, 2022, 16 (08): : 1077 - 1093
  • [28] Willingness-to-pay for sustainable beer
    Carley, Sanya
    Yahng, Lilian
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (10):
  • [29] Household willingness to pay equals individual willingness to pay if and only if the household income pools
    Munro, A
    [J]. ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2005, 88 (02) : 227 - 230
  • [30] Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment
    Michaud, Celine
    Llerena, Daniel
    Joly, Iragael
    [J]. EUROPEAN REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2013, 40 (02) : 313 - 329