In this paper, we examine citizen and consumer attitudes towards, and preferences for, private and public goods from organic agriculture in Norway. The study is based on a survey among 939 Norwegians. The results show that in the role as citizens, the respondents hold a moderate belief in the superiority of organic farming concerning the production of public goods, but they give relatively low priority to prompting organic farming compared to other agricultural policy goals. In the role as consumers (choice experiment), the respondents were willing to pay for several attributes of organic food. Only 6% of the respondents buy organic food as often as they can. The most important reasons for buying organic food are health and environmental concerns, while animal welfare has little importance. Lack of perceived superiority regarding health benefits, taste, safety and environment are important reasons for not consuming (more) organic food among those who rarely or never buy organic food.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
A professional survey company was utilized to collect the data. This company recruits from a sample of more than 60,000 Norwegians who are willing to participate in online surveys on various themes. Members of this sample group receive survey invitations via e-mail. Descriptive data about those who have completed a particular survey are continuously updated, and the final sample is ensured to be representative with respect to gender, age, and residence. People with a university education are, however, overrepresented. In Norway, 27.3% of the population has higher education (Statistics Norway 2010), while in our sample, 52.1% of the respondents have higher education. In all analyses, the survey data were weighted with respect to education level.
Preston and Colman (2000) found that a seven-point scale is among the best preferred (along with the 10 and 9 point scale).
‘Billig’ is a quite neutral term for inexpensive food.
The 939 respondents were randomly divided into four approximately equal groups, where each group only dealt with one of the food items. Some did not respond, so the results in Table 5 refer to a varying number of respondents (213–248, total 914).
A full factorial design of the experiment would have levied participants with 24 (2*2*2*3) choices. That many choices would have left participants exhausted so the number of choices had to be reduced. Although it might give interpretation difficulties, we generated a fractional choice set using the SAS macro % MktEx (Kuhfeld 2009). Many types of restrictions in the design of the experiment will give the same (so called A- and D-) efficiency. We used the “realistic” restriction that the 3 most expensive attributes would never be used along with the lowest price and vice versa. In the web-based survey, the four choice sets were presented in randomized order, and an opt-out option was not included.
The mixed logit model (Hole 2007) is often applied in analysis of discrete choice as it accounts for heterogeneity in preferences which are unrelated to observed characteristics. An anonymous referee has made us aware that an alternative would be to use the generalized multinominal logit model (Fiebig et al. 2010) that additionally accounts for scale heterogeneity.
For those who buy organic food.
Aerni P, Rae A, Lehmann B (2009) Nostalgia versus pragmatism? How attitudes and interests shape the term sustainable agriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand. Food Policy 34:227–235
Alphonce R, Alfnes F, Sharma A (2014) Consumer vs. citizen willingness to pay for restaurant food safety. Food Policy 49:160–166
Bjørkhaug H, Storstad O, 2001 En komparativ studie av økologisk forbruk i Norge og Danmark. [A Comparative Study of Organic Consumption in Norway and Denmark.] Report no. 2/01, Trondheim: Centre for Rural Research
Brennan G, Lomasky L (1983) Institutional aspects of ‘merit goods’ analysis. Finanzarchiv 41:183–206
Bryden JM, Efstratoglou S, Ferenczi T, Knickel K, Johnson T, Refsgaard K, Thomson KJ (2011) Towards sustainable rural regions in Europe. Exploring inter-relationships between rural policies, farming, environment, demographics, regional economies and quality of life using system dynamics. Routledge, London
BFJ (Budsjettnemnda for jordbruket [The Budget Committee for Agriculture]) (2016) Totalkalkylen for jordbruket. Jordbrukets totalregnskap 2014 og 2015. Budsjett 2016. [Aggregate Accounts for Agriculture 2014 and 2015. Budget 2016.]. Budsjettnemnda for jordbruket, Oslo
Chang JB, Lusk JL (2009) Fairness and food choice. Food Policy 34:483–491
Cooper T, Hart K, Baldock D (2009) The provision of public goods through agriculture in the European Union, report prepared for DG agriculture and rural development, contract No 30-CE-0233091/00-28. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London
Dabbert S, Häring AM, Zanoli R (2004) Organic farming: policies and prospects. Zed Books
Darmon N, Drewnowski A (2008) Does social class predict diet quality? Am J Clin Nutr 87:1107–1117
Durham, C.A., Andrade, D. (2005) Health vs. environmental motivation in organic preferences and purchases. Selected Paper for Presentation at the American Agricultural Economics Association annual meeting, July 24–27, Rhode Island
Flaten O, Lien G, Tveterås R (2011) A comparative study of risk exposure in agriculture and aquaculture. Acta Agriculturæ Scandinavica Section C - Food Economics 8:20–34
Fiebig DG, Keane MP, Louviere J, Wasi N (2010) The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Mark Sci 29:393–421
Gracia A, de Magistris T (2008) The demand for organic foods in south of Italy: a discrete choice model. Food Policy 33:386–396
Grunert KG (2006) Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Sci 74:149–160
Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Vol I: reason and the rationalization of society. Beacon Press, Boston
Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2006) Multivariate data analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River
Hemmerling S, Hamm U, Spiller A (2015) Consumption behaviour regarding organic food from a marketing perspective—a literature review. Org Agric 5:277–313
Hole AR (2007) Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. Stata J 7:388–401
Hyytiä N, Kola J (2006) Finnish citizens’ attitudes towards multifunctional agriculture. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 9(3):1–22
Huang CL (1996) Consumer’s preferences and attitudes towards organically grown produce. Eur Rev Agric Econ 23:331–342
Hughner RS, McDonagh P, Prothero A, Shultz CJ, Stanton J (2007) Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J Consum Behav 6:1–17
Kahneman D, Ritov I, Schkade D (1999) Economic preferences or attitude expressions?: an analysis of dollar responses to public issues. J Risk Uncertain 19:203–235
Kuhfeld WF (2009) Market research methods in SAS. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC
Kvakkestad V, Rørstad PK, Vatn A (2015) Norwegian farmers’ perspectives on agriculture and agricultural payments: between productivism and cultural landscapes. Land Use Policy 42:83–92
Marwell G, Ames RE (1981) Economists free ride, does anyone else? Experiments on the provision of public goods. J Public Econ 15:295–310
Michaelidou N, Hassan LM (2010) Modelling the factors affecting rural consumers’ purchase of organic and free-range produce: a case study of consumers’ from the Island of Arran in Scotland, UK. Food Policy 35:130–139
Ministry of Agriculture (1999) Om norsk landbruk og matproduksjon. [About Norwegian agriculture and foodproduction. Report to the Parliament. No. 19 (1999–2000)], Oslo
Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2011) Landbruks- og matpolitikken. Velkommen til bords. Meld. St. 9 (2011–2012) [The agricultural- and food policy. Welcome to the table. Report to the Parliament. No. 9 (2011–2012)], Oslo
National Research Council (2010) Toward sustainable agricultural systems in the twenty-first century. National Academies Press, Washington
Norwegian Agriculture Agency (2015). Produksjon og omsetning av økologiske landbruksvarer. Rapport for 2014 [Production and sale of organic agricultural products. Report for 2014]. Norwegian Agriculture Agency, Oslo
OECD (2001) Multifunctionality: towards an analytical framework. OECD, Paris
OECD (2014) Producer and consumer support estimates (database). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris http://www.oecd.org/chile/producerandconsumersupportestimatesdatabase.htm#country
Organic Information Services Pvt Ltd (2016) Organic facts. https://www.organicfacts.net/organic-products/organic-food/health-benefits-of-organic-food.html
Padel S, Foster C (2005) Exploring the gap between attitudes and behaviour. Br Food J 107:606–625
Powers TL, Hopkins RA (2006) Altruism and consumer purchase behavior. J Int Consum Mark 19:107–130
Preston CC, Colman AM (2000) Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol 104:1–15
Reganold JP, Wachter JM (2016) Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants 2:15221
Sagoff M (1988) The economy of the earth: philosophy, law and environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Statistics Norway (2010) Personer 16 år og over, etter utdanningsnivå, kjønn og bostedsfylke [Persons 16 years and older, by educational level, sex and county of residence]. http://www.ssb.no/utniv/tab-2010-06-25-01.html
Stolze M, Sanders J, Kasperczyk N, Madsen G (2016) CAP 2014–2020: organic farming and the prospects for stimulating public goods. IFOAM EU, Brussels
Storstad O (2004) The legitimacy of a multifunctional small-scale agriculture among consumers. A study of Norwegian preferences. Presentation at XI World Congress of Rural Sociology, Trondheim, July 25–30
Storstad O, Bjørkhaug H (2003) Foundations of production and consumption of organic food in Norway: common attitudes among farmers and consumers? Agric Hum Values 20:151–163
Train KE (1999) Mixed logit models for recreation demand. In Valuing recreation and the environment: Revealed preference methods on theory and practice, ed. Joseph A. Herriges, and Catherine L. Kling. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, Macdonald DW (2012) Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? A meta-analysis of European research. J Environ Manag 112:309–320. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018
Vanhonacker F, Verbeke W, Van Poucke E, Tuyttens F (2007) Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. Int J Sociol Agric Food 15:91–107
Varian HR (1992) Microeconomic analysis, Third Edition. Varian (Author). Norton & Company, New York, London
Vatn A (2005) Institutions and the environment. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar
Vatn A (2015) Environmental governance: institutions, policies and actions. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar
Veissier I, Butterworth A, Bock B, Roe E (2008) European approaches to ensure good animal welfare. Appl Anim Behav Sci 113:279–297
Verbeke W, Pérez-Cueto FJA, de Barcellos MD, Krystallis A, Grunert KG (2010) European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Sci 84:284–292
Verhoef PC (2005) Explaining purchase of organic meat by Dutch consumers. Eur Rev Agric Econ 32:245–267
Webler T (1995) “Right” discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) Fairness and competence in citizen's participation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London
Wier M, Jensen KD, Andersen LM, Millock K, Rosenkvist L (2008) The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared. Food Policy 33:406–421
Youngberg G, DeMuth SP (2013) Organic agriculture in the United States: a 30-year retrospective. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28:294–328
We thank the Research Council of Norway for funding this research through the project “Socio-economic and environmental impacts of organic farming”, grant number 176800. We also thank the two reviewers as they helped to improve the manuscript substantially.
About this article
Cite this article
Kvakkestad, V., Berglann, H., Refsgaard, K. et al. Citizen and consumer evaluation of organic food and farming in Norway. Org. Agr. 8, 87–103 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-017-0176-8
- Choice experiment