IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i10p3801-d177158.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer Perceptions of the Commodification and Related Conservation of Traditional Indigenous Naxi Forest Products as Credence Goods (China)

Author

Listed:
  • Karlis Rokpelnis

    (Independent Researcher)

  • Peter Ho

    (School of Social Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
    Department of International Development, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK)

  • Gong Cheng

    (College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Minzu University of China, No. 27 Zhongguancun South Street, Beijing 100081, China)

  • Heng Zhao

    (Institute of Global Development, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China)

Abstract

Commodification of Traditional Knowledge (TK) has been posited as a possible, although contested, alternative for the conservation of indigenous resources. Here we examine the case of the Chinese Naxi minority, with particular reference to the practice of sacred “Dongba” papermaking. The commodification of TK is a complex process with many pitfalls and trade-offs between the environment, economy, and social empowerment. In the process of commodification, consumers have arisen as an important force in environmental politics. To date, little is known about the way domestic tourists, the main consumer base of indigenous products, perceive Dongba paper. In this context, we examined their knowledge of Naxi culture, their willingness to pay for sustainably produced paper, and their perceptions of the product’s authenticity. This socio-economic study is based on a survey ( n = 415) in rural Southwest China. We found a significant potential to market Dongba paper as a sustainable indigenous product. Although knowledge about Naxi culture was circumscribed (3% could identify the plant used for papermaking), the majority of respondents (55%) was willing to pay for TK protection. Respondents also preferred third-party labelling. We posit that TK products could be seen as credence goods, necessitating certification to ensure product authenticity and establish consumer trust. Markedly, the survey also found that attitudes as to who should provide third-party assurance are contradictory. The Chinese government was preferred as the strongest assurance of genuineness, but paradoxically, commanded the least trust in its ability to manage and fund the conservation of TK.

Suggested Citation

  • Karlis Rokpelnis & Peter Ho & Gong Cheng & Heng Zhao, 2018. "Consumer Perceptions of the Commodification and Related Conservation of Traditional Indigenous Naxi Forest Products as Credence Goods (China)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-18, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3801-:d:177158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3801/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3801/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    2. Rao, Akshay R & Bergen, Mark E, 1992. "Price Premium Variations as a Consequence of Buyers' Lack of Information," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 19(3), pages 412-423, December.
    3. Darby, Michael R & Karni, Edi, 1973. "Free Competition and the Optimal Amount of Fraud," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 67-88, April.
    4. Laura Raynolds & Douglas Murray & Andrew Heller, 2007. "Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-party environmental and social certification initiatives," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(2), pages 147-163, June.
    5. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    6. Konstantinos Giannakas, 2002. "Information Asymmetries and Consumption Decisions in Organic Food Product Markets," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(1), pages 35-50, March.
    7. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    8. Weyerhaeuser, Horst & Wilkes, Andreas & Kahrl, Fredrich, 2005. "Local impacts and responses to regional forest conservation and rehabilitation programs in China's northwest Yunnan province," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 234-253, September.
    9. Kees Krul & Peter Ho, 2017. "Alternative Approaches to Food: Community Supported Agriculture in Urban China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-16, May.
    10. Hatanaka, Maki & Bain, Carmen & Busch, Lawrence, 2005. "Third-party certification in the global agrifood system," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 354-369, 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. Chen Wei & Guoquan Zheng, 2023. "Measuring and Evaluating the Commodification of Sustainable Rural Living Areas in Zhejiang, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-13, February.

    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. Rokpelnis, Karlis & Ho, Peter & Cheng, Gong & Zhao, Heng, 2018. "Consumer perceptions of the commodification and related conservation of traditional indigenous Naxi forest products as credence goods (China)," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 91498, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Koji Domon & Alessandro Melcarne & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2022. "Fake & original: the case of Japanese food in Southeast Asian countries," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 327-347, October.
    3. Charity, Nabwire Ephamia Juma, 2016. "Economic Analysis Of Consumers’ Awareness And Willingness To Pay For Geographical Indicators And Other Quality Attributes Of Honey In Kenya," Research Theses 265574, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    4. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Anders, Sven M. & Souza Monteiro, Diogo M. & Rouviere, Elodie, 2007. "Objectiveness in the Market for Third-Party Certification: Does market structure matter?," 105th Seminar, March 8-10, 2007, Bologna, Italy 7894, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Cristina Grazia & Abdelhakim Hammoudi, 2012. "Explaining the Emergence of Private Standards in Food Supply Chains," Working Papers hal-00749345, HAL.
    7. Sarah Bowen & Tad Mutersbaugh, 2014. "Local or localized? Exploring the contributions of Franco-Mediterranean agrifood theory to alternative food research," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 201-213, June.
    8. Giovanni Anania & Rosanna Nisticò, 2004. "Public Regulation as a Substitute for Trust in Quality Food Markets: What if the Trust Substitute cannot be Fully Trusted?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 160(4), pages 681-701, December.
    9. Katherine Fuller & Carola Grebitus, 2023. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for coffee sustainability labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1007-1025, October.
    10. Ramo Barrena & Mercedes Sánchez, 2011. "Abstraction and product categories as explanatory variables for food consumption," Post-Print hal-00712382, HAL.
    11. Annalisa Zezza & Federica Demaria & Tiziana Laureti & Luca Secondi, 2020. "Supervising third-party control bodies for certification: the case of organic farming in Italy," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    12. Oranuch Wongpiyabovorn & Alejandro Plastina & John M. Crespi, 2021. "US Agriculture as a Carbon Sink: From International Agreements to Farm Incentives," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 21-wp627, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    13. Ehmke, Mariah Dolsen & Bonanno, Alessandro & Boys, Kathryn & Smith, Trenton G., 2019. "Food fraud: economic insights into the dark side of incentives," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    14. Chad M. Baum & Robert Weigelt, 2019. "How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Chai & Chad M. Baum (ed.), Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution, pages 141-169, Springer.
    15. Gabriele Jahn & Matthias Schramm & Achim Spiller, 2005. "The Reliability of Certification: Quality Labels as a Consumer Policy Tool," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 53-73, December.
    16. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Floress, Kristin & Reimer, Adam & Thompson, Aaron & Burbach, Mark & Knutson, Cody & Prokopy, Linda & Ribaudo, Marc & Ulrich-Schad, Jessica, 2018. "Measuring farmer conservation behaviors: Challenges and best practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 414-418.
    18. Baker, Andrew & Smyth, Stuart, 2010. "Managing Opportunism in Value-Added Supply Chains:," 14th ICABR Conference, June 16-18, 2010, Ravello, Italy 187979, International Consortium on Applied Bioeconomy Research (ICABR).
    19. Giannakas, Konstantinos & Yiannaka, Amalia, 2003. "Agricultural Biotechnology And Organic Agriculture: National Organic Standards, Labeling And Second-Generation Of Gm Products," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22063, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    20. Tribl, Christoph & Salhofer, Klaus, 2004. "Promoting Organic Food: Information Policy Versus Production Subsidy," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20003, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).

    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:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:10:p:3801-:d:177158. 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.