IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v168y2024ics1389934124001564.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are consumers “green” enthusiasts or skeptics? Evidence from nontimber forest products

Author

Listed:
  • Paudel, Bindu
  • Zhou, Mo

Abstract

In recent years, in response to consumers' increasing demand for “greener” products due to growing environmental awareness, more and more businesses have turned to eco-labels to assert the environmental benefits of their products or services. However, it remains unclear how consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) varies with different types of eco-labeling, especially concerning food products harvested from forests. In this study, we employ discrete choice modeling to uncover consumers' preferences for “green” maple syrup—syrup made with sap tapped from sustainably managed forests—under four eco-labels: self-claimed, bird-friendly, verified by a voluntary conservation program, and certified by a third-party. Our findings reveal that the WTPs for “green” maple syrup under eco-labels are higher than that for organic maple syrup, except for the third-party certified label. One plausible explanation is that some consumers may perceive sustainability certification as greenwashing, leading them to be skeptical of the claimed benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Paudel, Bindu & Zhou, Mo, 2024. "Are consumers “green” enthusiasts or skeptics? Evidence from nontimber forest products," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:168:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124001564
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934124001564
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103302?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:eee:forpol:v:168:y:2024:i:c:s1389934124001564. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.