IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare11/100716.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Attitudes towards Sustainability Attributes on Food Labels

Author

Listed:
  • Tait, Peter R.
  • Miller, Sini
  • Abell, Walter L.
  • Kaye-Blake, William
  • Guenther, Meike
  • Saunders, Caroline M.

Abstract

Concerns about climate change and the general status of the environment have increased expectation that food products have sustainability credentials, and that these can be verified. There are significant and increasing pressures in key export markets for information on Greenhouse gas (GHG) intensity of products throughout its life-cycle. How this information is conveyed to consumers is a key issue. Labelling is a common method of communicating certain product attributes to consumers that may influence their choices. In a choice experiment concerning fruit purchase decisions, this study estimates willingness to pay for sustainability attributes by consumers in Japan and the UK. The role of label presentation format is investigated: text only, text and graphical, and graphical only. Results indicate that sustainability attributes influence consumers’ fruit purchase decisions. Reduction of carbon in fruit production is shown to be the least valued out of sustainability attributes considered. Differences are evident between presentation formats and between countries, with increased nutrient content being the most sensitive to format and country while carbon reduction is the most insensitive and almost always valued the least.

Suggested Citation

  • Tait, Peter R. & Miller, Sini & Abell, Walter L. & Kaye-Blake, William & Guenther, Meike & Saunders, Caroline M., 2011. "Consumer Attitudes towards Sustainability Attributes on Food Labels," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100716, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare11:100716
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.100716
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/100716/files/Tait%20P.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.100716?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kaye-Blake, William & Abell, Walter L. & Zellman, Eva, 2009. "Respondents’ ignoring of attribute information in a choice modelling survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 53(4), pages 1-18.
    2. Scarpa, Riccardo & Rose, John M., 2008. "Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: how to measure it, what to report and why," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(3), pages 1-30.
    3. Denzil G. Fiebig & Michael P. Keane & Jordan Louviere & Nada Wasi, 2010. "The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 393-421, 05-06.
    4. 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.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    6. Noussair, Charles & Robin, Stephane & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2002. "Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 47-53, March.
    7. Nelson, Phillip, 1970. "Information and Consumer Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 78(2), pages 311-329, March-Apr.
    8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    9. McCluskey, Jill J. & Loureiro, Maria L., 2003. "Consumer Preferences And Willingness To Pay For Food Labeling: A Discussion Of Empirical Studies," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 34(3), pages 1-8, November.
    10. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    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. Banterle, Alessandro & Cavaliere, Alessia & Ricci, Elena Claire, 2012. "Food labelled Information: An Empirical Analysis of Consumer Preferences," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144960, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    2. Rebecca Boehm & Hannah Kitchel & Selena Ahmed & Anaya Hall & Colin M. Orians & John Richard Stepp & Al Robbat, Jr. & Timothy S. Griffin & Sean B. Cash, 2019. "Is Agricultural Emissions Mitigation on the Menu for Tea Drinkers?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Taylor, Rebecca & Krovetz, Hannah, 2016. "Willingness to Pay for Low Water Footprint Food Choices During Drought," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt9vh3x180, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    4. Sackett, Hillary & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2016. "Differentiating “Sustainable” From “Organic” And “Local” Food Choices: Does Information About Certification Criteria Help Consumers?," International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics (IJFAEC), Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Department of Economics and Finance, vol. 4(3), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Sackett, Hillary M. & Shupp, Robert & Tonsor, Glynn, 2013. "Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Farming Practices: A Best-Worst Scenario," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers’ attitudes on carbon footprint labelling. Results of the SUSDIET project," Thünen Working Paper 266396, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    7. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Copfer, Jackie & Campbell, Nica, 2021. "Preferences for Sustainability and Supply Chain Essential Worker Conditions: Survey Evidence during COVID-19," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0nv2n39w, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    8. Hannah Krovetz & Rebecca Taylor & Sofia B. Villas-Boas, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Low Water Footprint Foods during Drought," NBER Chapters, in: Agricultural Productivity and Producer Behavior, pages 251-291, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Mamouni Limnios, Elena & Schilizzi, Steven G.M. & Burton, Michael & Ong, Angeline & Hynes, Niki, 2016. "Willingness to pay for product ecological footprint: Organic vs non-organic consumers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 338-348.
    10. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers' attitudes on carbon footprint labelling: Results of the SUSDIET project," Thünen Working Papers 78, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    11. Iancu Ramona Maria, 2014. "Consumers’ Perception and Behavior Towards Ecosanogene Products Made by Goat Milk," Management of Sustainable Development, Sciendo, vol. 6(2), pages 87-92, December.
    12. Xiaogu Li & Christopher Clark & Kimberly Jensen & Steven Yen, 2014. "Will consumers follow climate leaders? The effect of manufacturer participation in a voluntary environmental program on consumer preferences," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(1), pages 69-87, January.
    13. Sporleder, Eva M. & Kayser, Maike & Friedrich, Nina & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Sustainably Produced Bananas: A Discrete Choice Experiment," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-24, February.
    14. 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.
    15. Banterle, Alessandro & Cavaliere, Alessia & Ricci, Elena Claire, 2013. "Food Labelled Information: An Empirical Analysis," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 3(2), pages 1-15, January.

    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. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Bartczak, Anna & Giergiczny, Marek & Navrud, Stale & Żylicz, Tomasz, 2014. "Providing preference-based support for forest ecosystem service management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-12.
    2. I. G. Ukpong & K. G. Balcombe & I. M. Fraser & F. J. Areal, 2019. "Preferences for Mitigation of the Negative Impacts of the Oil and Gas Industry in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(2), pages 811-843, October.
    3. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    4. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Anna Bartczak & Marek Giergiczny & Stale Navrud & Tomasz Żylicz, 2013. "Providing Preference-Based Support for Forest Ecosystem Service Management in Poland," Working Papers 2013-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    5. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    6. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2017. "Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for food safety labels in an emerging market: The case of fresh produce in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-34.
    7. Makriyannis, Christos & Johnston, Robert, 2016. "Welfare Analysis for Climate Risk Reductions: Are Current Treatments of Outcome Uncertainty Sufficient?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235532, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    9. Christos Makriyannis & Robert J. Johnston & Ewa Zawojska, 2022. "Do numerical probabilities promote informed stated preference responses under inherent uncertainty? Insight from a coastal adaptation choice experiment," Working Papers 2022-05, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. Sandorf, Erlend Dancke & Aanesen, Margrethe & Navrud, Ståle, 2016. "Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 50-61.
    11. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    12. de Ayala, Amaia & Hoyos, David & Mariel, Petr, 2015. "Suitability of discrete choice experiments for landscape management under the European Landscape Convention," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-96.
    13. Onozaka, Yuko & Saue, Vegar Veseth & Costanigro, Marco, 2018. "The Moderating Effect of Heterogeneous Beliefs on Consumer Preferences for a New Food Technology: The Case of Modified Atmospheric Packaging," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274068, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Sobolewski, Maciej & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2018. "Receiver benefits and strategic use of call externalities in mobile telephony markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 16-27.
    15. Chen, Tiantian & Fu, Xiaowen & Hensher, David A. & Li, Zhi-Chun & Sze, N.N., 2022. "Air travel choice, online meeting and passenger heterogeneity – An international study on travellers’ preference during a pandemic," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 439-453.
    16. Weller, Priska & Elsasser, Peter, 2018. "Preferences for forest structural attributes in Germany – Evidence from a choice experiment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-9.
    17. Mikołaj Czajkowski & Nick Hanley & Jacob LaRiviere, 2016. "Controlling for the Effects of Information in a Public Goods Discrete Choice Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(3), pages 523-544, March.
    18. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    19. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    20. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Consumer/Household Economics; Environmental Economics and Policy; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:aare11:100716. 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.