IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i12p3432-d572497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Potting Mix with Biochar

Author

Listed:
  • McKenzie Thomas

    (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • Kimberly L. Jensen

    (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • Dayton M. Lambert

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078, USA)

  • Burton C. English

    (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • Christopher D. Clark

    (Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • Forbes R. Walker

    (Department of Biosystems Engineering and Soil Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

Abstract

Biochar is a co-product of advanced biofuels production from feedstocks including food, agricultural, wood wastes, or dedicated energy crops. Markets for soil amendments using biochar are emerging, but little is known about consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for these products or the depth of the products’ market potential for this product. This research provides WTP estimates for potting mix amended with 25% biochar, conditioned on consumer demographics and attitudes about product information labeling. Data were collected with an online survey of 577 Tennessee home gardeners. WTP was elicited through a referendum contingent valuation. Consumer WTP for an 8.81 L bag of 25% biochar potting mix is $8.52; a premium of $3.53 over conventional potting mix. Demographics and attitudes toward biofuels and the environment influence WTP. Biochar amounts demanded are projected for the study area’s potential market. Optimal prices, profits, and market shares are estimated across different marginal costs of producing biochar potting mix.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:12:p:3432-:d:572497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/12/3432/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/12/3432/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. He, Lixia & English, Burton C. & Menard, Robert J. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2016. "Regional woody biomass supply and economic impacts from harvesting in the southern U.S," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 151-161.
    2. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    3. Bishop, Richard C., 2018. "Warm Glow, Good Feelings, and Contingent Valuation," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(3), September.
    4. Yejun Choi & Dayton M. Lambert & Kimberly L. Jensen & Christopher D. Clark & Burton C. English & McKenzie Thomas, 2020. "Rank-Ordered Analysis of Consumer Preferences for the Attributes of a Value-Added Biofuel Co-Product," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-17, March.
    5. R. K. Blamey & J. W. Bennett & M. D. Morrison, 1999. "Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 75(1), pages 126-141.
    6. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn & Bridget Behe & Charles Hall & Ben Campbell & Jennifer Dennis & Chengyan Yue, 2018. "Visual attention, buying impulsiveness, and consumer behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 23-35, March.
    7. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    8. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    9. Fan, Yubing & McCann, Laura E., 2015. "Households' Adoption of Drought Tolerant Plants: An Adaptation to Climate Change?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205544, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    11. 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, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 757-772, November.
    12. Richard T. Carson & W. Michael Hanemann & Raymond J. Kopp & Jon A. Krosnick & Robert Cameron Mitchell & Stanley Presser, 1998. "Referendum Design And Contingent Valuation: The Noaa Panel'S No-Vote Recommendation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(3), pages 484-487, August.
    13. Campbell, Robert M. & Anderson, Nathaniel M. & Daugaard, Daren E. & Naughton, Helen T., 2018. "Financial viability of biofuel and biochar production from forest biomass in the face of market price volatility and uncertainty," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C), pages 330-343.
    14. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    15. Mohammad I. Jahirul & Mohammad G. Rasul & Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury & Nanjappa Ashwath, 2012. "Biofuels Production through Biomass Pyrolysis —A Technological Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-50, November.
    16. Park, William M. & Lamons, Kevin S. & Roberts, Roland K., 2002. "Factors Associated with Backyard Composting Behavior at the Household Level," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 31(2), pages 147-156, October.
    17. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    18. Alicia Rihn & Hayk Khachatryan & Benjamin Campbell & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2016. "Consumer preferences for organic production methods and origin promotions on ornamental plants: evidence from eye-tracking experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(6), pages 599-608, November.
    19. David Hoyos & Petr Mariel, 2010. "Contingent Valuation: Past, Present and Future," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2010(4), pages 329-343.
    20. 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.
    21. Park, William M. & Lamons, Kevin S. & Roberts, Roland K., 2002. "Factors Associated with Backyard Composting Behavior at the Household Level," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 31(2), pages 1-10, October.
    22. Kauffman, Nathan & Dumortier, Jerome & Hayes, Dermot J. & Brown, Robert C. & Laird, David, 2014. "Producing energy while sequestering carbon? The relationship between biochar and agricultural productivity," ISU General Staff Papers 201404010700001488, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Li, Xiaogu & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Clark, Christopher D. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2016. "Consumer willingness to pay for beef grown using climate friendly production practices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 93-106.
    3. Sardana, Kavita, 2019. "Tourists' Willingness to Pay for Restoration of Traditional Agro-forest Ecosystems Providing Biodiversity: Evidence from India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 362-372.
    4. Andor, Mark A. & Lange, Andreas & Sommer, Stephan, 2022. "Fairness and the support of redistributive environmental policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Shr, Yau-Huo (Jimmy) & Zhang, Wendong, 2024. "Omitted downstream attributes and the benefits of nutrient reductions: Implications for choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    8. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2006. "A comparison of alternative certainty calibration techniques in contingent valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 507-519, May.
    9. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    10. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    11. John C. Whitehead & Andrew Ropicki & John Loomis & Sherry Larkin & Tim Haab & Sergio Alvarez, 2023. "Estimating the benefits to Florida households from avoiding another Gulf oil spill using the contingent valuation method: Internal validity tests with probability‐based and opt‐in samples," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 705-720, June.
    12. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    13. Paul Mwebaze & Jeff Bennett & Nigel W. Beebe & Gregor J. Devine & Paul Barro, 2018. "Economic Valuation of the Threat Posed by the Establishment of the Asian Tiger Mosquito in Australia," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(2), pages 357-379, October.
    14. Timothy C. Haab & Matthew G. Interis & Daniel R. Petrolia & John C. Whitehead, 2013. "From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's 'Dubious to Hopeless' Critique of Contingent Valuation," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(4), pages 593-612.
    15. Håkansson, Cecilia & Östberg, Katarina & Bostedt, Göran, 2012. "Estimating Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy in Swedish Coastal Environments – A Walk along different Socio-economic Dimensions," CERE Working Papers 2012:18, CERE - the Center for Environmental and Resource Economics.
    16. Pappalardo, Gioacchino & West, Grant Howard & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Toscano, Sabrina & Pecorino, Biagio, 2022. "The effect of a UNESCO world heritage site designation on willingness to pay to preserve an agri-environmental good: The case of the dry stone walls in Mt. Etna," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    17. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    18. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Samnaliev, Mihail & Stevens, Thomas H. & More, Thomas, 2003. "A Comparison Of Cheap Talk And Alternative Certainty Calibration Techniques In Contingent Valuation," Working Paper Series 14517, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    20. Zawojska, Ewa & Bartczak, Anna & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "Disentangling the effects of policy and payment consequentiality and risk attitudes on stated preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 63-84.

    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:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:12:p:3432-:d:572497. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.