IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/316350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of pollinator related information on consumer preference for neonicotinoid labeling

Author

Listed:
  • Khachatryan, Hayk
  • Wei, Xuan
  • Rihn, Alicia

Abstract

Despite increasing concerns about the potential negative impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides on pollinator insect health in the regulatory community, public perceptions about the use of such pest management tools are mainly unknown. To assess U.S. consumers’ feedback to information linking neonicotinoid insecticides to pollinator health, the present study investigated consumers’ preferences for different neonicotinoid labels. Specifically, it analyzed the effect of negative and balanced pollinator related information treatments on consumers’ preferences for labels disclosing the absence or presence of neonicotinoids. The effects of the information treatments were asymmetric, with the negative information treatment having a more substantial impact on individual choices. Information treatments were more effective at influencing participants’ willingness to pay (WTP) for labels disclosing the absence of neonicotinoids, as opposed to labels disclosing the presence of neonicotinoids. Preexisting knowledge about neonicotinoid insecticides had a significant impact on how individuals responded to information treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • Khachatryan, Hayk & Wei, Xuan & Rihn, Alicia, 2021. "Effects of pollinator related information on consumer preference for neonicotinoid labeling," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(6), April.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:316350
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.316350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/316350/files/ifamr2020.0158.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.316350?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douadia Bougherara & Pierre Combris, 2009. "Eco-labelled food products: what are consumers paying for?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(3), pages 321-341, September.
    2. Lynn J. Frewer & Susan Miles & Roy Marsh, 2002. "The Media and Genetically Modified Foods: Evidence in Support of Social Amplification of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(4), pages 701-711, August.
    3. Li, Tongzhe & McCluskey, Jill J., 2017. "Consumer preferences for second-generation bioethanol," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1-7.
    4. Wei, Xuan & Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia, 2020. "Consumer Preferences for Labels Disclosing the Use of Neonicotinoid Pesticides: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(3), September.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    6. Meise, Jan Niklas & Rudolph, Thomas & Kenning, Peter & Phillips, Diane M., 2014. "Feed them facts: Value perceptions and consumer use of sustainability-related product information," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 510-519.
    7. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    8. Jill J. McCluskey & Johan F.M. Swinnen, 2004. "Political Economy of the Media and Consumer Perceptions of Biotechnology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1230-1237.
    9. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(1), pages 135-148, June.
    10. Celine Michaud & Daniel Llerena & Iragael Joly, 2013. "Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 40(2), pages 313-329, March.
    11. Julie A. Caswell, 2000. "An evaluation of risk analysis as applied to agricultural biotechnology (with a case study of gmo labeling)," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 115-123.
    12. Jura Liaukonyte & Nadia A. Streletskaya & Harry M. Kaiser & Bradley J. Rickard, 2013. "Consumer Response to "Contains" and "Free of" Labeling: Evidence from Lab Experiments," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 476-507.
    13. McFadden, Brandon R. & Lusk, Jayson L., 2015. "Cognitive biases in the assimilation of scientific information on global warming and genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 35-43.
    14. Brandon R McFadden & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "Effects of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: Willingness To Pay for Labels that Communicate the Presence or Absence of Genetic Modification," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 40(2), pages 259-275.
    15. Vilella-Vila, Marta & Costa-Font, Joan, 2008. "Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 2095-2106, October.
    16. Jayson L. Lusk & Darren Hudson, 2004. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimates and Their Relevance to Agribusiness Decision Making," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 26(2), pages 152-169.
    17. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Seo, Han-Seok & Zhang, Baoyue & Verbeke, Wim, 2015. "Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 215-225.
    18. Jill J. McCluskey & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Johan Swinnen, 2016. "Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 467-486, October.
    19. Wuyang Hu, 2006. "Comparing consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for non-GM oil using a contingent valuation approach," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 143-150, March.
    20. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    21. Nadia A Streletskaya & Jura Liaukonyte & Harry M Kaiser, 2019. "Absence labels: How does information about production practices impact consumer demand?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, June.
    22. Rousseau, Sandra & Vranken, Liesbet, 2013. "Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labeled organic food products," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 31-43.
    23. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    24. Kent D. Messer & Marco Costanigro & Harry M. Kaiser, 2017. "Labeling Food Processes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 407-427.
    25. Philip M. Fernbach & Nicholas Light & Sydney E. Scott & Yoel Inbar & Paul Rozin, 2019. "Extreme opponents of genetically modified foods know the least but think they know the most," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(3), pages 251-256, March.
    26. Geraldine Fennell & Greg Allenby & Sha Yang & Yancy Edwards, 2003. "The Effectiveness of Demographic and Psychographic Variables for Explaining Brand and Product Category Use," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 223-244, June.
    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. Hasanov, Mustafa & Trienekens, Jacques & Dolfsma, Wilfred, 2021. "Advancing food and agribusiness management research: IFAMA 2020 best papers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(6), October.
    2. 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).

    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. 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).
    2. Li, Tongzhe & Fooks, Jacob & Messer, Kent D., 2017. "Residents’ Preferences in Adopting Water Runoff Management Practices: Examining the Effect of Behavioral Nudges in a Field Experiment," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259127, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Lanz, Bruno & Wurlod, Jules-Daniel & Panzone, Luca & Swanson, Timothy, 2018. "The behavioral effect of Pigovian regulation: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 190-205.
    4. Li, Tongzhe & Fooks, Jacob R. & Messer, Kent D. & Ferraro, Paul J., 2021. "A field experiment to estimate the effects of anchoring and framing on residents’ willingness to purchase water runoff management technologies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    5. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.
    6. Ellen J Van Loo & Carola Grebitus & Rodolfo M Nayga & Wim Verbeke & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "On the Measurement of Consumer Preferences and Food Choice Behavior: The Relation Between Visual Attention and Choices," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 538-562, December.
    7. Li, Tongzhe & McCluskey, Jill J. & Messer, Kent D., 2018. "Ignorance Is Bliss? Experimental Evidence on Wine Produced from Grapes Irrigated with Recycled Water," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 100-110.
    8. 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.
    9. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    10. Swait, Joffre, 2023. "Distribution-free estimation of individual parameter logit (IPL) models using combined evolutionary and optimization algorithms," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    11. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Yang Yang & Jill E. Hobbs, 2020. "The Power of Stories: Narratives and Information Framing Effects in Science Communication," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(4), pages 1271-1296, August.
    13. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    14. D Adeline Yeh & Miguel I Gómez & Harry M Kaiser, 2019. "Signaling impacts of GMO labeling on fruit and vegetable demand," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, October.
    15. Kota Mameno & Takahiro Kubo & Hiroyuki Oguma & Yukihiro Amagai & Yasushi Shoji, 2022. "Decline in the alpine landscape aesthetic value in a national park under climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-18, February.
    16. Raja Chakir & Maia David & Estelle Gozlan & Aminata Sangare, 2016. "Valuing the Impacts of An Invasive Biological Control Agent: A Choice Experiment on the Asian Ladybird in France," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(3), pages 619-638, September.
    17. Wuyang Hu & Michele M. Veeman & Wiktor L. Adamowicz, 2005. "Labelling Genetically Modified Food: Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Value of Information," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 53(1), pages 83-102, March.
    18. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    19. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    20. Fosgerau, Mogens & Bierlaire, Michel, 2007. "A practical test for the choice of mixing distribution in discrete choice models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 784-794, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy;

    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:ifaamr:316350. 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/ifamaea.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.