IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare04/58393.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Selling Australia as "clean and green"

Author

Listed:
  • Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie)
  • Kristiansen, Paul

Abstract

"Green and clean" has been used as a key marketing tool to promote Australian products overseas. The rationale is that consumers are generally concerned about personal health and the environment and will choose, and pay price premiums, for products that are perceived to be clean (good for them) and green (good for the environment) over alternative products. But is Australia seen as clean and green? Is it really why people buy Australian? This paper attempts to investigate such questions

Suggested Citation

  • Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kristiansen, Paul, 2004. "Selling Australia as "clean and green"," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58393, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare04:58393
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.58393
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/58393/files/2004_changkristiansen.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.58393?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. Kingwell, Ross S., 2003. "Quality Assurance Certification and Implementation: Growers' Costs and Perceived Benefits," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 11.
    2. Khanna, Madhu & Isik, Murat & Zilberman, David, 2002. "Cost-effectiveness of alternative green payment policies for conservation technology adoption with heterogeneous land quality," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 157-174, August.
    3. Pretty, J. N. & Brett, C. & Gee, D. & Hine, R. E. & Mason, C. F. & Morison, J. I. L. & Raven, H. & Rayment, M. D. & van der Bijl, G., 2000. "An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 113-136, August.
    4. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    5. Heller, Martin C. & Keoleian, Gregory A., 2003. "Assessing the sustainability of the US food system: a life cycle perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 1007-1041, 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. Hui‐Shung (Christie) Chang & Paul Kristiansen, 2006. "Selling Australia as ‘clean and green’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(1), pages 103-113, March.
    2. Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kristiansen, Paul, 2006. "Selling Australia as ‘clean and green’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(01), pages 1-11, March.

    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. Chang, Hui-Shung (Christie) & Kristiansen, Paul, 2004. "Selling Australia as 'Clean and Green'," Working Papers 12899, University of New England, School of Economics.
    2. Demmeler, M., 2004. "Ressourceneffizienz regionaler und ökologischer Lebensmittel - Eine kombinierte Anwendung von Ökobilanzierung und ressourcenökonomischer Analyse," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    3. Asci, Serhat & Borisova, Tatiana & VanSickle, John J., 2015. "Role of economics in developing fertilizer best management practices," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 251-261.
    4. Giuseppe Maggio & Marina Mastrorillo & Nicholas J. Sitko, 2022. "Adapting to High Temperatures: Effect of Farm Practices and Their Adoption Duration on Total Value of Crop Production in Uganda," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(1), pages 385-403, January.
    5. Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Bensch, Gunther & Grimm, Michael, 2024. "Behavioural constraints in energy technology uptake: Evidence from real-purchase offers in rural Rwanda and Senegal," Ruhr Economic Papers 1081, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    7. Gregory S. Amacher & Erkki Koskela & Markku Ollikainen, 2004. "Deforestation, Production Intensity and Land Use under Insecure Property Rights," CESifo Working Paper Series 1128, CESifo.
    8. Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & van der Ham, Corinda, 2014. "Costs and benefits associated with the externalities generated by Dutch agriculture," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182705, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    10. Madhu Khanna, 2021. "Digital Transformation of the Agricultural Sector: Pathways, Drivers and Policy Implications," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1221-1242, December.
    11. Soto, Iria & Achten, Wouter M.J. & Muys, Bart & Mathijs, Erik, 2015. "Who benefits from energy policy incentives? The case of jatropha adoption by smallholders in Mexico," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 37-47.
    12. Eric Tollens, 2004. "Biodiversity versus transgenic sugar beet: the one euro question," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(1), pages 1-18, March.
    13. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    14. Jules Pretty, 1999. "Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed Africa? New Evidence on Progress, Processes and Impacts," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 253-274, September.
    15. Gbêtondji Melaine Armel Nonvide, 2021. "Adoption of agricultural technologies among rice farmers in Benin," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(4), pages 2372-2390, November.
    16. Senthold Asseng & David Pannell, 2013. "Adapting dryland agriculture to climate change: Farming implications and research and development needs in Western Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 167-181, May.
    17. Emma Jane Dillon & Thia Hennessy & Peter Howley & John Cullinan & Kevin Heanue & Anthony Cawley, 2018. "Routine inertia and reactionary response in animal health best practice," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 207-221, March.
    18. Nasca, J.A. & Feldkamp, C.R. & Arroquy, J.I. & Colombatto, D., 2015. "Efficiency and stability in subtropical beef cattle grazing systems in the northwest of Argentina," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 85-96.
    19. Gökhan Uzel & Serkan Gürlük & Esma Aslak & Feza Karaer, 2022. "Land use preferences considering resource economics: case of organic versus conventional wheat production in Turkey," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(12), pages 14375-14392, December.
    20. de Boer, Joop & Boersema, Jan J. & Aiking, Harry, 2009. "Consumers' motivational associations favoring free-range meat or less meat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 850-860, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Marketing;

    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:aare04:58393. 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/aaresea.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.