Consumer Choices and Motives for Eco-Labeled Products in China: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Choice Experiment
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Methodology: Choice Modeling
2.2. Economic Model and Empirical Specification
2.3. Survey Design and Data Description
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Characteristics of the Sample
3.2. Estimates of Mixed Logit Model
3.3. Estimates of Latent Class Model
3.4. Socio-Demographic Profile, Knowledge, and Motivation of the Segments
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Tobler, C.; Visschers, V.H.; Siegrist, M. Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite 2011, 57, 674–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Grunert, S.C. Everybody Seems Concerned about the Environment: But Is This Concern Reflected in (Danish) Consumers’ Food Choice? In E-European Advances in Consumer Research; Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, USA, 1993; Volume 1, pp. 428–433. [Google Scholar]
- Tukker, A.; Jansen, B. Environmental impacts of products: A detailed review of studies. J. Ind. Ecol. 2006, 10, 159–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mostafa, M.M. Gender differences in Egyptian consumers? Green purchase behaviour: The effects of environmental knowledge, concern and attitude. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2007, 31, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krystallis, A.; Chryssohoidis, G. Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic food: Factors that affect it and variation per organic product type. Br. Food J. 2005, 107, 320–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bleda, M.; Valente, M. Graded eco-labels: A demand-oriented approach to reduce pollution. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2009, 76, 512–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bougherara, D.; Combris, P. Eco-labelled food products: What are consumers paying for? Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2009, 36, 321–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loureiro, M.L.; McCluskey, J.J.; Mittelhammer, R.C. Assessing consumer preferences for organic, eco-labeled, and regular apples. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2001, 26, 404–416. [Google Scholar]
- Daugbjerg, C.; Smed, S.; Andersen, L.M.; Schvartzman, Y. Improving eco-labelling as an environmental policy instrument: Knowledge, trust and organic consumption. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2014, 16, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galarraga Gallastegui, I. The use of eco-labels: A review of the literature. Eur. Environ. 2002, 12, 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sønderskov, K.M.; Daugbjerg, C. The state and consumer confidence in eco-labeling: Organic labeling in Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Agric. Hum. Values 2011, 28, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aertsens, J.; Mondelaers, K.; Verbeke, W.; Buysse, J.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. The influence of subjective and objective knowledge on attitude, motivations and consumption of organic food. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 1353–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanoli, R.; Scarpa, R.; Napolitano, F.; Piasentier, E.; Naspetti, S.; Bruschi, V. Organic label as an identifier of environmentally related quality: A consumer choice experiment on beef in Italy. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2013, 28, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Magistris, T.; Gracia, A. The decision to buy organic food products in southern Italy. Br. Food J. 2008, 110, 929–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onyango, B.M.; Hallman, W.K.; Bellows, A.C. Purchasing organic food in US food systems: A study of attitudes and practice. Br. Food J. 2007, 109, 399–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vega-Zamora, M.; Torres-Ruiz, F.J.; Murgado-Armenteros, E.M.; Parras-Rosa, M. Organic as a heuristic cue: What Spanish consumers mean by organic foods. Psychol. Mark. 2014, 31, 349–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, S.; Xu, Y.; Chen, M. Consumers purchase decisions and affecting factors on organic food. China Popul. Resour. Environ. 2013, 7, 136–141. [Google Scholar]
- Xin-jian, C.; Tao, D.; Gan-jun, Y. Analysis of urban consumers’perception and purchase decision towards organic food. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2014, 2, 80–87. [Google Scholar]
- Yin, S.; Wu, L.; Du, L.; Chen, M. Consumers’ purchase intention of organic food in China. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 1361–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, H. Empirical study on the green agricultural products’ consumer behavior in Guangzhou and its influential factors. J. Northwest A F Univ. (Soc. Sci. Ed.) 2010, 4, 52–56. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, M.; Zhao, C. Analysis on consumption intention and consumption behavior of green agricultural products. Chin. Rural Econ. 2008, 24, 44–55. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, X.; Gao, Z.; Zeng, Y. Willingness to pay for the “green food” in China. Food Policy 2014, 45, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boström, M.; Klintman, M. Green Labels and Other Eco-Standards: A Definition. In Eco-Standards, Product Labelling and Green Consumerism; Palgrave Macmillan UK: London, UK, 2008; pp. 27–32. [Google Scholar]
- Thøgersen, J. Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchase decisions: Model development and multinational validation. J. Consum. Policy 2000, 23, 285–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loureiro, M.L.; McCluskey, J.J.; Mittelhammer, R.C. Will consumers pay a premium for eco-labeled apples? J. Consum. Aff. 2002, 36, 203–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, P.; Zeng, Y.; Fong, Q.; Lone, T.; Liu, Y. Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay for green- and eco-labeled seafood. Food Control 2012, 28, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, W.; Florkowski, W.J.; Brückner, B.; Schonhof, I. Willingness to pay for environmental practices: Implications for eco-labeling. Land Econ. 2002, 78, 88–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, B.; Simintiras, A.C. The impact of green product lines on the environment: Does what they know affect how they feel? Mark. Intell. Plan. 1995, 13, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loureiro, M.L.; Umberger, W.J. A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability. Food Policy 2007, 32, 496–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Ortega, D.L.; Wang, H.H.; Olynk, N.J.; Wu, L.; Bai, J. Chinese consumers’ demand for food safety attributes: A push for government and industry regulations. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2012, 94, 489–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T.; Haider, W.; Solgaard, H.S.; Ravn-Jonsen, L.; Roth, E. Consumer willingness to pay for quality attributes of fresh seafood: A labeled latent class model. Food Qual. Preference 2015, 41, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Wezemael, L.; Caputo, V.; Nayga, R.M.; Chryssochoidis, G.; Verbeke, W. European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments. Food Policy 2014, 44, 167–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Qual. Preference 2012, 25, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aoki, K.; Akai, K.; Ujiie, K. A choice experiment to compare preferences for rice in thailand and Japan: The impact of origin, sustainability, and taste. Food Qual. Preference 2017, 56, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouma, E.; Abdulai, A.; Drucker, A. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits among cattle-keeping households in East Africa. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 89, 1005–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortega, D.L.; Wang, H.H.; Wu, L.; Olynk, N.J. Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China. Food Policy 2011, 36, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hensher, D.A. Greene, W.H. The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30, 133–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L. Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: A latent class approach. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2002, 23, 421–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wedel, M.; Kamakura, W.; Böckenholt, U. Marketing data, models and decisions. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2000, 17, 203–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnier, L.; Schoormans, J.; Mugge, R. Judging a product by its cover: Packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Qual. Preference 2016, 53, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnier, L.; Schoormans, J. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klaiman, K.; Ortega, D.L.; Garnache, C. Perceived barriers to food packaging recycling: Evidence from a choice experiment of US consumers. Food Control 2017, 73, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Street, D.J.; Burgess, L.; Louviere, J.J. Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2005, 22, 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rousseau, S.; Vranken, L. Green market expansion by reducing information asymmetries: Evidence for labeled organic food products. Food Policy 2013, 40, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mangham, L.J.; Hanson, K.; McPake, B. How to do (or not to do) ... Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy Plan. 2009, 24, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gracia, A.; de Magistris, T. The demand for organic foods in the south of italy: A discrete choice model. Food Policy 2008, 33, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denver, S.; Jensen, J.D. Consumer preferences for organically and locally produced apples. Food Qual. Preference 2014, 31, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Ittersum, K.; Candel, M.J.J.M.; Meulenberg, M.T.G. The influence of the image of a product’s region of origin on product evaluation. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roosen, J.; Lusk, J.L.; Fox, J.A. Consumer demand for and attitudes toward alternative beef labeling strategies in France, Germany, and the UK. Agribusiness 2003, 19, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, S.; Chen, M.; Xu, Y.; Chen, Y. Chinese consumers’ willingness-to-pay for safety label on tomato: Evidence from choice experiments. China Agric. Econ. Rev. 2017, 9, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, H.-H.; Gao, Q.; Wu, Y.-P.; Wang, Y.; Zhu, X.-D. What affects green consumer behavior in China? A case study from Qingdao. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 63, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellows Anne, C.; Onyango, B.; Diamond, A.; Hallman William, K. Understanding consumer interest in organics: Production values vs. Purchasing behavior. J. Agric. Food Ind. Organ. 2008, 6, 1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attributes | Level Considered | ||
---|---|---|---|
Eco-labels | None | Green label | Organic label |
Geographical origin | None | Labeled | - |
Brand | None | Local | National |
Price (¥/500 g) | ¥2.5/500 g | ¥4.4/500 g | ¥7.5/500 g |
Option A | Option B | Option C | |
---|---|---|---|
Eco-labels | Green | Organic | Neither |
Geographical origin | Yes | No | |
Brand | National | None | |
Price (¥/500 g) | 4.4 | 7.5 |
Variables | Description | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | 1 = male; 0 = female | 0.368 | 0.482 |
Marriage | 1 = married; 0 = unmarried | 0.768 | 0.422 |
Age | 1 = 18–24 years old; 2 = 25–34 years old; 3 = 35–44 years old; 4 = 45–54 years old; 5 = 55–64 years old; 6 = more than 65 years old | 2.623 | 1.022 |
Monthly income | 1 = less than 5000; 2 = 5001–8000 yuan; 3 = 8001–11,000 yuan; 4 = 11,001–14,000 yuan; 5 = more than 14,000 yuan | 3.368 | 1.371 |
Education | 1 = middle school or below; 2 = high school; 3 = 3-year college; 4 = undergraduate; 5 = postgraduate | 3.731 | 1.001 |
Concern for food safety | How concerned you are with food safety issues (1–5) How worried are you about rice quality and safety (1–5) | 3.578 | 0.864 |
Concern for environment | The large-scale use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers will pollute the environment (1–5); The severity of current agricultural pollution caused by planting process (1–5); The overall situation of China’s agricultural pollution (1–5) | 1.850 | 0.636 |
Knowledge | Based on your understanding, are the following statements correct (correct = 1; wrong = 0): (1) Chemical fertilizers can be limited used in green planting; (2) Chemical pesticides are allowed in green planting; (3) High toxic and high-persistent pesticides are permitted in green rice planting; (4) Organic planting respects environmental protection and ecological balance; (5) Chemical pesticides are allowed in organic planting; (6) Chemical fertilizers are allowed in organic planting; | 4.522 | 1.080 |
Variables | Mean Coefficient | Derived S.D. Coefficient |
---|---|---|
Price | −0.333 *** (0.018) | NA |
Option C | −2.011 *** (0.095) | NA |
Green label | 0.784 *** (0.058) | 0.620 *** (0.075) |
Organic label | 0.989 *** (0.060) | 0.600 *** (0.080) |
Local brand | 0.333 *** (0.046) | 0.088 (0.119) |
National brand | 0.371 *** (0.052) | 0.487 *** (0.084) |
Geographical origin | 0.771 *** (0.056) | 0.950 *** (0.058) |
No. of observations | 11,745 | 11,745 |
Log-likelihood value | −2826.794 | |
Chi-square value | 432.88 |
Variables | Class1 | Class2 | Class3 |
---|---|---|---|
Utility function coefficients | |||
Price | −0.107 *** | −1.171 *** | −0.233 *** |
(0.019) | (0.091) | (0.054) | |
Green label | 0.653 *** | 1.116 *** | 0.387 ** |
(0.052) | (0.141) | (0.120) | |
Organic label | 0.832 *** | 1.242 *** | 0.735 *** |
(0.058) | (0.167) | (0.119) | |
Local brand | 0.299 *** | 0.191 | 0.868 *** |
(0.048) | (0.151) | (0.138) | |
National brand | 0.389 *** | −0.017 | 0.692 *** |
(0.052) | (0.156) | (0.133) | |
Geographical origin | 0.268 *** | 0.507 *** | 1.928 *** |
(0.039) | (0.127) | (0.149) | |
Option C | −2.035 *** | −5.501 *** | −0.195 |
(0.149) | (0.418) | (0.271) | |
Class membership coefficients | |||
Knowledge | −0.283 *** | 0.708 *** | - |
(0.107) | (0.146) | ||
Concern for food safety | −0.056 | −0.372 ** | - |
(0.138) | (0.190) | ||
Concern for environment | 0.170 | 0.217 | - |
(0.181) | (0.264) | ||
Gender | 0.117 | −0.373 | - |
(0.267) | (0.354) | ||
Marriage | 0.074 | 0.443 | - |
(0.344) | (0.506) | ||
Age | −0.147 | −0.004 | - |
(0.134) | (0.200) | ||
Education | 0.181 | 0.272 | - |
(0.119) | (0.172) | ||
Income | −0.066 | −0.270 ** | - |
(0.093) | (0.130) | ||
Constant | 1.654 ** | −3.087 ** | - |
(0.712) | (1.274) | ||
Latent class share | 52.3% | 20.9% | 26.8% |
Traits | Mixed Logit Model | Latent Class Model | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Class 1 | Class 2 | Class 3 | ||
Green label | 2.352 a | 6.112 *** | 0.953 *** | 1.660 *** |
(1.974, 2.730) 1 | (3.834, 8.390) b | (0730, 1.175) | (0.486, 2.834) | |
Organic label | 2.967 | 7.784 *** | 1.061 *** | 3.151 *** |
(2.537, 3.398) | (4.766, 10.801) | (0.813, 1.309) | (1.453, 4.849) | |
Local brand | 0.999 | 2.797 *** | 0.163 | 3.723 *** |
(0.734, 1.265) | (1.482, 4.113) | (−0.087, 0.414) | (2.005, 5.441) | |
National brand | 1.114 | 3.640 *** | −0.015 | 2.968 *** |
(0.785, 1.443) | (1.954, 5.326) | (−0.276, 0.247) | (1.085, 4.852) | |
Geographical origin | 2.313 | 2.510 *** | 0.433 *** | 8.268 *** |
(1.940, 2.687) | (1.308, 3.711) | (0.233, 0.633) | (4.625, 11.911) |
Class Membership | Class 1 | Class 2 | Class 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Concern for food safety | 0.022 *** | −0.050 *** | 0.028 *** |
(0.005) | (0.004) | (0.005) | |
Concern for the environment | 0.019 *** | 0.016 *** | −0.035 *** |
(0.007) | (0.005) | (0.007) | |
Knowledge | −0.123 *** | 0.117 *** | 0.007 * |
(0.004) | (0.003) | (0.004) | |
Gender | 0.060 *** | −0.060 *** | 0.0003 |
(0.008) | (0.006) | (0.008) | |
Marriage | −0.026 ** | 0.059 *** | −0.033 *** |
(0.011) | (0.009) | (0.011) | |
Age | −0.034 *** | 0.012 *** | 0.022 *** |
(0.005) | (0.004) | (0.005) | |
Education | 0.016 *** | 0.024 *** | −0.041 *** |
(0.005) | (0.004) | (0.004) | |
Income | 0.009 *** | −0.032 *** | 0.022 *** |
(0.003) | (0.002) | (0.003) | |
Constant | 0.961 *** | −0.207 *** | 0.246 *** |
(0.036) | (0.028) | (0.034) |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Liu, Q.; Yan, Z.; Zhou, J. Consumer Choices and Motives for Eco-Labeled Products in China: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Choice Experiment. Sustainability 2017, 9, 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030331
Liu Q, Yan Z, Zhou J. Consumer Choices and Motives for Eco-Labeled Products in China: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Choice Experiment. Sustainability. 2017; 9(3):331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030331
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Qing, Zhen Yan, and Jiehong Zhou. 2017. "Consumer Choices and Motives for Eco-Labeled Products in China: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Choice Experiment" Sustainability 9, no. 3: 331. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030331