Advertisement

Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 333–342 | Cite as

Beef with environmental and quality attributes: Preferences of environmental group and general population consumers in Saskatchewan, Canada

  • Ken W. Belcher
  • Andrea E. Germann
  • Josef K. Schmutz
Article

Abstract

We attempt to quantify and qualify the preferences of consumers for beef with a number of environmental and food quality attributes. Our goal is to evaluate the viability of a proposed food co-operative based in the Wood River watershed of southern Saskatchewan, Canada. The food co-operative was designed to provide a price premium to producers who adopted alternative management practices. In addition, the study evaluated the acceptance of a proposed food co-operative by consumer that had environmental interests as compared to the general population. Conjoint analysis was used to determine the trade-off and relative value of beef with the following production and purchasing characteristics: (a) use of hormones, antibiotics and vaccination in production; (b) method of obtaining the beef including monthly or yearly purchase contracts or a local market; (c) price relative to beef purchased from the local grocery store; and (d) impact on the river ecosystem. Consumers from environmental groups had stronger environmental and food quality preferences than individuals from the general population. However, consumers from both groups expressed a willingness to pay higher prices for food that had these attributes. It was uncertain whether the magnitude of the premium, in combination with a desire not to enter a long-term purchasing commitment, would be large enough to encourage farmers to adopt the alternative management.

Keywords

Conjoint analysis Consumer preferences Credence attributes Environmental goods and services Riparian zones Water quality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this research was provided by the Canadian Adaptation and Rural Development Saskatchewan (CARDS) administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The authors would also like to thank the Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment (CSALE) at the University of Saskatchewan and all of the survey participants and the producers in the Wood River watershed for their assistance in this and the larger Wood River Co-operative project.

References

  1. Adamowicz W., Louviere J., Williams M. (1994) Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26(3):271–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afnes F., Rickertsen K. (2004) European consumers’ acceptance of US hormone-treated beef. Eurochoices 3(3):18–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson R. C., Hansen E. N. (2004) The impact of environmental certification on preferences for wood furniture: A conjoint analysis approach. Forest Products Journal 54(3):42–51Google Scholar
  4. Auger P., Burke P., Devinney T., Louviere J. J. (2003) What will consumers pay for social product features? Journal of Business Ethics 42:281–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baarsma B. E. (2003) The valuation of the IJmeer nature reserve using conjoint analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics 25:343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balmford A., Gaston K. J., Blyth S., James A., Kapos V. (2003) Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100:1046–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belcher K., Schmutz J. K. (2005) Management of the prairie landscape through strategic consumer-producer cooperatives. Prairie Forum 30(1):55–72Google Scholar
  8. Boxall P. C., Adamowicz W. L., Swait J., Williams M., Louviere J. (1996) A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecological Economics 18: 243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caswell J. A. (1998) How labelling of safety and process attributes affect markets for food. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 27(2):151–158Google Scholar
  10. Clayton K. M., Schmutz J. K. (1999) Is the decline of burrowing owls Speotyto cunicularia in prairie Canada linked to changes in Great Plains ecosystems? Bird Conservation International 9:163–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) (2005). Canadian Species at Risk, ( 64 pp) Ottawa, Canada: Author. Google Scholar
  12. Donald D. B., Syrgiannis J., Hunter F., Weiss G. (1999) Agricultural pesticides threaten the ecological integrity of northern prairie wetlands. Science of the Total Environment 231(2–3):173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duke J. M. (2004) A conjoint analysis of public preferences for agricultural land preservation. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(2):209–219Google Scholar
  14. Farber S., Griner B. (2000) Valuing watershed quality improvements using conjoint analysis. Ecological Economics 34:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guptill A., Wilkins J. L. (2002) Buying into the food system: Trends in food retailing in the US and implications for local foods. Agriculture and Human Values 19:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harrison G. W., Rutstrom E. E. (2002) Experimental evidence on the existence of hypothetical bias in value elicitation methods. In: Plott C., Smith V. L. (eds) Handbook of Results in Experimental Economics. New York, Elsevier ScienceGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinrichs C. C. (2000) The embeddedness of local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural markets. Journal of Rural Studies 16:295–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hobbs J. E. (2004) Information asymmetry and the role of traceability systems. Agribusiness 20(4):397–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holm J., (2004). The water quality of the wood river and the effects of land use, Unpublished MS thesis. Saskatoon, Canada: Department of Environmental Engineering, University of Saskatchewan.Google Scholar
  20. Lancaster K. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74:132–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lusk J. L., Norwood F. B. (2005) Effect of experimental design on choice-based conjoint valuation estimates. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(3):771–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. MacMillan D.C. (2004). Actual and hypothetical willingness to pay for environmental outputs: why are they different? University of Aberdeen, Report to Scottish Executive Rural Affairs and Environment Department (SEERAD), Scotland.Google Scholar
  23. MacMillan D. C., Smart T. S., Thorburn A. P. (1999) A field experiment involving cash and hypothetical charitable donations. Environmental and Resource Economics 14:399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McKenzie-Mohr D. (1996). Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to Community-Based Social Marketing. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, National Round Table on the Environment and the EconomyGoogle Scholar
  25. Neill H. R., Cummings R. G., Ganderton P. T., Harrison G. W., McGuiken T. (1994) Hypothetical surveys and real economic commitments. Land Economics 70(2):145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oberholtzer L., Dimitri C., Greene C. (2005). Price Premiums Hold on as U.S. Organic Produce Market Expands. VGS-308–01. Washington, DC, Economic Research Service, US Department of AgricultureGoogle Scholar
  27. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2004). Agriculture and the Environment: Lessons Learned from a Decade of OECD Work. Paris: Author. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/28/33913449.pdf on November, 2005.Google Scholar
  28. O’Hara S. U., Stagl S. (2002) Endogenous preferences and sustainable development. Journal of Socio-Economics 31:511–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roheim C.A. and Johnston R.J. (2005). “A battle of the taste and environmental convictions for ecolabeled seafood: A choice experiment.” Proceedings of the American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Providence, R.I.Google Scholar
  30. Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (2005). Agricultural Statistics 2004. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, Government of Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/apps/agriculture_statistics/ on October 12, 2005.
  31. Semlitsch R. D., Bodie J. R. (2003) Biological criteria for buffer zones around wetlands and riparian habitats for amphibians and reptiles. Conservation Biology 17:1219–1228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Statistics Canada (2005). Statistics for the Province of Saskatchewan. Retrieved from http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/pro01/pro108.htm/ on October 7, 2005.
  33. Warnock R. G., Skeel M. A. (2004) The effectiveness of voluntary habitat stewardship in conserving grassland: Case of Operation Burrowing Owl in Saskatchewan. Environmental Management 33:306–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wier M., L. G. Hansen, L. M. Andersen, and K. Millock (2003). “Consumer preferences for organic foods.” In OECD (ed.), Organic Agriculture: Sustainability, Markets and Policies (pp.257–271). Paris, Washington D.C.: Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ken W. Belcher
    • 1
  • Andrea E. Germann
    • 2
  • Josef K. Schmutz
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural EconomicsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the EnvironmentUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations