Advertisement

Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions

  • M. Lefebvre
  • C. Biguzzi
  • E. Ginon
  • S. Gomez-y-Paloma
  • S. R. H. Langrell
  • S. Marette
  • G. Mateu
  • A. Sutan
Research Article

Abstract

A realistic experiment with 189 French consumers was conducted to analyse consumers’ reaction to the transition towards integrated pest management (IPM) as the standard in European farming. Results indicate high substitutability between IPM and organic tomatoes. It suggests that IPM sales will benefit from the withdrawal of conventional products from the market only if there is a significant reduction in the price of IPM products as compared to organic ones and/or an important increase in the shelf space dedicated to IPM products. While information on IPM guidelines increases IPM products purchases, providing extra information on residue levels in IPM tomatoes has no further impact on consumers’ choices in this experiment.

Keywords

Integrated pest management Organic Tomatoes Sustainable use of pesticides directive Multinomial probit Open-ended choice experiment 

JEL classification

C91 D12 Q13 Q18 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The survey on which this paper is based was funded by the IPTS, JRC-European Commission in the context of the project “Consumers’ willingness to pay for Integrated Production: experimental design and data collection”, PO 153580. However, the views expressed are purely those of the authors and may not, in any circumstances, be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Marianne Lefebvre acknowledges funding from Agropolis Fondation and the French National Research Agency (program “Investissements d’avenir” ANR-10-LABX-0001-01, Project “CAP-eye”). The authors would like to thank the partners of the FP7-PURE project for supporting the initial idea. We would especially like to thank Christine Poncet (INRA) for contributing to the elaboration of the information on the different types of tomatoes disclosed to participants. We are also grateful to the two anonymous referees for their constructive input.

Author contributions

M. Lefebvre, S.R.H. Langrell and S. Gomez-y-Paloma formulated the original question. The experiment was designed by E. Ginon, S. Marette and A. Sutan with the help of M. Lefebvre and G. Mateu and programmed by G. Mateu in z-Tree. The sessions were organized by C. Biguzzi with the help of E. Ginon, G. Mateu, A. Sutan and H. Saysithideth. M. Lefebvre performed data analysis and wrote the first version of the manuscript. All authors provided feedback on previous versions of the manuscript. M. Lefebvre was responsible for overall coordination.

References

  1. Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2009). Personal determinants of organic food consumption: a review. British Food Journal, 111(10), 1140–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alfnes, F., Guttormsen, A. G., Steine, G., & Kolstad, K. (2006). Consumers’ willingness to pay for the color of salmon: a choice experiment with real economic incentives. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(4), 1050–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ali Bashir, K. (2012). Determinants of willingness-to-pay a premium for organically produced tomatoes in Riyadh City, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). African Journal of Agricultural Research, 7(43), 5726–5733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alphonce, R., & Alfnes, F. (2015). Eliciting consumer WTP for food characteristics in a developing context: comparison of four valuation methods in a African market. Journal of Agricultural Economics. doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12170.Google Scholar
  5. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., & Johansson-Stenman, O. (2008). Anonymity, reciprocity, and conformity: evidence from voluntary contributions to a national park in Costa Rica. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6), 1047–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alvarez, R. M., Nagler, J., & Bowler, S. (2000). Issues, economics, and the dynamics of multiparty elections: the British 1987 general election. The American Political Science Review, 94(1), 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Andreoni, J., & Petrie, R. (2004). Public goods experiments without confidentiality: a glimpse into fundraising. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7–8), 1605–1623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aubertot, J.N., J.M. Barbier, A. Carpentier, J.J. Gril, L. Guichard, P. Lucas, S. Savary, I. Savini, and M. Voltz. (2005). Pesticides, agriculture et environnement: réduire l’utilisation des pesticides et en limiter les impacts environnementaux. Rapport d’expertise réalisé par l’INRA et le Cemagref à la demande du Ministère de l’agriculture et de la pêche (MAP) et du Ministère de l’écologie et du développement durable (MEDD)Google Scholar
  9. Baker, B. P., Benbrook, C. M., Groth, E., III, Lutz Benbrook, K. (2002). Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets. Food Additives and Contaminants, 19(5), 427–446.Google Scholar
  10. Bazoche, P., Bunte, F., Combris, P., Giraud-Héraud, E., Seabra-Pinto, A., & Tsakiridou, E. (2013). Willingness to pay for pesticides’ reduction in EU: nothing but organic? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Becker, G. M., DeGroot, M. H., & Marschak, J. (1964). Measuring utility by a single-response sequential method. Behavioral Science, 9(3), 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boxall, P., W.L. (Vic), A., & Moon, A. (2009). Complexity in choice experiments: choice of the status quo alternative and implications for welfare measurement. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53(4), 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Canali, G. (2011). The role of the ‘integrated production’ scheme in the fruit and vegetable CMO. In A. Sorrentino, R. Henke, & S. Severini (Eds.), The common agricultural policy after the Fischler reform (pp. 417–430). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2007). Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 34(3), 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carson, R. T., Louviere, J. J., Anderson, D. A., Arabie, P., Bunch, D. S., Hensher, D. A., Johnson, R. M., Kuhfeld, W. F., Steinberg, D., Swait, J., Timmermans, H., & Wiley, J. B. (1994). Experimental analysis of choice. Marketing Letters, 5(4), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chatfield, M., & Mander, A. (2009). The Skillings–Mack test (Friedman test when there are missing data). The Stata Journal, 9(2), 299–305.Google Scholar
  17. Corrigan, J. R., Depositario, D. P. T., Nayga, R. M., Wu, X., & Laude, T. P. (2009). Comparing open-ended choice experiments and experimental auctions: an application to golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(3), 837–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EU. (2009). Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 establishing a framework for community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides.Google Scholar
  19. Fischbacher, U. (2007). z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics, 10(2), 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Florax, R., Travisi, C. M., & Nijkamp, P. (2005). A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(4), 441–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ginon, E., Ares, G., Esteves dos Santos Laboissière, L. H., Brouard, J., Issanchou, S., & Deliza, R. (2014a). Logos indicating environmental sustainability in wine production: an exploratory study on how do Burgundy wine consumers perceive them. Food Research International, 62, 837–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ginon, E., Chabanet, C., Combris, P., & Issanchou, S. (2014b). Are decisions in a real choice experiment consistent with reservation prices elicited with BDM ‘auction’? The case of French baguettes. Food Quality and Preference, 31, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grolleau, G., Sutan, A., & Vranceanu, R. (2013). Taking the well-being of future generations seriously: do people contribute more to intra-temporal or inter-temporal public goods? ESSEC working paper. Document de Recherche ESSEC / Centre de recherche de l’ESSEC. ISSN: 1291–9616. WP 1313.Google Scholar
  24. Hasund, K. P., Kataria, M., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2011). Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(1), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hensher, D. A. (2010). Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(6), 735–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hu, W., Veeman, M., Adamowicz, W., & Gao, G. (2006). Consumers’ food choices with voluntary access to genetic modification information. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 54(4), 585–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jumbe, C. B. L., & Angelsen, A. (2011). Modeling choice of fuelwood source among rural households in Malawi: a multinomial probit analysis. Energy Economics, 33(5), 732–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kallas, Z., Escobar, C., & Gil, J. M. (2012). Assessing the impact of a Christmas advertisement campaign on Catalan wine preference using choice experiments. Appetite, 58(1), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lamine, C., Haynes, I., Barzman, M., & Paratte, R. (2010). The potential role of supermarket procurement strategies as drivers of IPM - Policy Brief No. 2. ENDURE Policy Brief No., 2, p. 6.Google Scholar
  30. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lefebvre, M., Langrell, S. R. H., & Gomez-y-Paloma, S. (2015). Incentives and policies for integrated pest management in Europe: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lusk, J. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2004). Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 86(2), 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marette, S., Messéan, A., & Millet, G. (2012). Consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-friendly apples under different labels: evidences from a lab experiment. Food Policy, 37, 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maynard, L. J., Hartell, J. G., Meyer, A. L., & Hao, J. (2004). An experimental approach to valuing new differentiated products. Agricultural Economics, 31(2–3), 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mc Fadden, D. L. (1973). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics (pp. 105–142). Academic: New York.Google Scholar
  36. Mesías Díaz, F. J., Martínez-Carrasco Pleite, F., Martínez Paz, J.-M., & Gaspar García, P. (2012). Consumer knowledge, consumption, and willingness to pay for organic tomatoes. British Food Journal, 114(3), 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Michaud, C., Llerena, D., & Joly, I. (2012). Willingness to pay for environmental attributes of non-food agricultural products: a real choice experiment. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 40(2), 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miettinen, A., Hietala-Koivu, R., & Lehtonen, H. (2004). On diversity effects of alternative agricultural policy reforms in Finland: an agricultural sector modelling approach. Agricultural and Food Science, 13, 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morris, C., & Winter, M. (1999). Integrated farming systems: the third way for European agriculture? Land Use Policy, 16(4), 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mouron, P., Heijne, B., Naef, A., Strassemeyer, J., Hayer, F., Avilla, J., Alaphilippe, A., Höhn, H., Hernandez, J., Mack, G., Gaillard, G., Solé, J., Sauphanor, B., Patocchi, A., Samietz, J., Bravin, E., Lavigne, C., Bohanec, M., Golla, B., Scheer, C., Aubert, U., & Bigler, F. (2012). Sustainability assessment of crop protection systems: SustainOS methodology and its application for apple orchards. Agricultural Systems, 113(0), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pelzer, E., Fortino, G., Bockstaller, C., Angevin, F., Lamine, C., Moonen, C., Vasileiadis, V., Guérin, D., Guichard, L., Reau, R., & Messéan, A. (2012). Assessing innovative cropping systems with DEXiPM, a qualitative multi-criteria assessment tool derived from DEXi. Ecological Indicators, 18(0), 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rege, M., & Telle, K. (2004). The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7–8), 1625–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rigby, D., Alcon, F., & Burton, M. (2010). Supply uncertainty and the economic value of irrigation water. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 37(1), 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. van der Velden, N., R. Suay, A. Urbaneja, M. Giorgini, M. Ruoco, C. Poncet, and A. Lefèvre. (2012). Recent developments and market opportunities for IPM in greenhouse tomatoes in southern Europe: consequences for advanced IPM toolboxes and greenhouse engineering. Research report LEI memorandum 12–077, Wageningen; URGoogle Scholar
  46. Vasileiadis, V. P., Sattin, M., Otto, S., Veres, A., Pálinkás, Z., Ban, R., Pons, X., Kudsk, P., van der Weide, R., Czembor, E., Moonen, A. C., & Kiss, J. (2011). Crop protection in European maize-based cropping systems: current practices and recommendations for innovative integrated pest management. Agricultural Systems, 104(7), 533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weaver, R. D., Evans, D. J., & Luloff, A. E. (1992). Pesticide use in tomato production: consumer concerns and willingness-to-pay. Agribusiness, 8(2), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wibberley, J. (1995). Cropping intensity and farming systems: integrity and intensity in international perspective. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 156, 43–55.Google Scholar
  49. Wier, M., & Calverley, C. (2002). Market potential for organic foods in Europe. British Food Journal, 104(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yiridoe, E. K., Bonti-Ankomah, S., & Martin, R. C. (2002). Comparison of consumer perceptions and preference toward organic versus conventionally produced foods: a review and update of the literature. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 20(4), 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yue, C., Alfnes, F., & Jensen, H. H. (2009). Discounting spotted apples: investigating consumers’ willingness to accept cosmetic damage in an organic product. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Lefebvre
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Biguzzi
    • 3
  • E. Ginon
    • 3
  • S. Gomez-y-Paloma
    • 1
  • S. R. H. Langrell
    • 4
  • S. Marette
    • 5
  • G. Mateu
    • 3
  • A. Sutan
    • 3
  1. 1.European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS)SevilleSpain
  2. 2.Université d’Angers, UMR GranemAngersFrance
  3. 3.Laboratory for Experimentation in Social Sciences and Behavioral Analysis (LESSAC)Burgundy School of BusinessDijonFrance
  4. 4.Plant Health, Food of Plant Origin and Food Quality UnitEuropean Commission, Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection, Food and Veterinary OfficeDunsanyIreland
  5. 5.INRA, UMR Economie PubliqueThiverval-GrignonFrance

Personalised recommendations