Environmental Behavior Spillover or Public Information Induction: Consumers' Intention to Pay a Premium for Rice Grown with Green Manure as Crop Fertilizer.
environmental behavior spillover; intention to pay a premium; pro-environmental behavior; pro-environmental food; public information induction; rice grown with green manure as crop fertilizer (GMR)
Abstract :
[en] Nowadays, there is a growing interest in pro-environmental foods produced by pro-environmental practices. However, consumers' payment motivations towards such foods are currently poorly understood. This manuscript provided a critical investigation of Chinese consumers' intention to pay a premium (ITPP) for rice grown with green manure as crop fertilizer (GMR). One focus was the establishment of an explanatory structural research framework that includes effects of environmental behavior spillover (EBS) and public information induction (PII); another focus was to analyze the impacts of the selected structural elements on ITPP by introducing education as a moderator. Results suggest that consumers' ITPP can be largely influenced by PII, therefore, for GMR marketers and policy makers, measures should be developed to widen consumers' access to public information related to GMR and to improve their capacity of screening effective information. EBS, when ITPP remains low, emerged as a pivotal predictor of consumers' ITPP. This observation provides us with the enlightenment that breeding consumers' daily environmental behaviors is highly valued to inspire their payment intention in the early stages of GMR market development. Another finding is that, with the introduction of the educational variable, the influence coefficients of EBS and PII on ITPP increased from 0.42 and 0.53 to 0.61 and 0.66, respectively, which means that it is possible to boost consumers' payment intention by improving their educational attainment. This study contributes to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence for the GMR industrial upgrading strategy and have significant implications for the environmental governance of the agricultural sector.
Disciplines :
Agriculture & agronomy
Author, co-author :
Li, Fuduo; Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
Zhang, Kangjie; Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
Hao, Aibo ; Université de Liège - ULiège > TERRA Research Centre ; Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
Yin, Changbin ; Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China ; Research Center for Agricultural Green Development in China, Beijing 100081, China
Wu, Guosheng; Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
Language :
English
Title :
Environmental Behavior Spillover or Public Information Induction: Consumers' Intention to Pay a Premium for Rice Grown with Green Manure as Crop Fertilizer.
Funding: This research was funded by Major Program of National Social Science Foundation of China (grant number 18ZDA048), China Green Manure Research System (grant number CARS-22-G25), and General Project of China Postdoctoral Foundation.
Moreau, P.; Ruiz, L.; Raimbault, T.; Vertes, F.; Cordier, M.; Gascuel-Odoux, C.; Masson, V.; Salmon-Monviola, J.; Durand, P. Modeling the potential benefits of catch-crop introduction in fodder crop rotations in a Western Europe landscape. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 437, 276–284. [CrossRef]
Knott, S.C. An analysis of the financial implications of different tillage systems within different crop rotations in the Swartland area of the Western Cape, South Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 56, 49–57.
Mbwaga, A. On-farm verification and promotion of green manure for enhancing upland rice productivity on Striga-infested fields in Tanzania. Final Technical Report. Am. J. Ophthalmol. 2006, 114, 441–447.
Wu, L.; Wang, S.; Zhu, D.; Hu, W.; Wang, H. Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork. China Econ. Rev. 2015, 35, 121–136. [CrossRef]
Li, X.; Jensen, K.; Clark, C.; Lambert, D.M. Consumer willingness to pay for beef grown using climate friendly production practices. Food Policy 2016, 64, 93–106. [CrossRef]
Yu, X.; Gao, Z.; Zeng, Y. Willingness to pay for the “Green Food” in China. Food Policy 2014, 45, 80–87. [CrossRef]
Zhou, J.; Liu, Q.; Mao, R.; Yu, X. Habit spillovers or induced awareness: Willingness to pay for eco-labels of rice in China. Food Policy 2017, 71, 62–73. [CrossRef]
Da Motta, R.S.; Ortiz, R.A. Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 147, 333–342. [CrossRef]
Malawska, A.; Topping, C.J.; Nielsen, H.Ø. Why do we need to integrate farmer decision making and wildlife models for policy evaluation? Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 732–740. [CrossRef]
Hernández-Espallardo, M.; Arcas-Lario, N.; Tantius, P.H. Farmers’ satisfaction and intention to continue as members of agricultural marketing co-operatives: A test of the neoclassical and transaction costs theories. In Proceedings of the 113th EAAE Seminar “A resilient European food industry and food chain in a challenging world”, Chania, Crete, Greece, 3 September 2009.
Knowler, D.; Bradshaw, B. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 2007, 32, 25–48. [CrossRef]
Moisander, J.K. Motivational complexity of green consumerism. Inter. J. Consum. Stud. 2010, 31, 404–409. [CrossRef]
Chekima, B.; Chekima, K.; Chekima, K. Understanding factors underlying actual consumption of organic food: The moderating effect of future orientation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 74, 49–58. [CrossRef]
Xiang, Z.; Magnini, V.P.; Fesenmaier, D.R. Information technology and consumer behavior in travel and tourism: Insights from travel planning using the internet. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 22, 244–249. [CrossRef]
Vicente-Molina, M.A.; Fernández-Sáinz, A.; Izagirre-Olaizola, J. Environmental knowledge and other variables affecting pro-environmental behaviour: Comparison of university students from emerging and advanced countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 61, 130–138. [CrossRef]
De Leeuw, A.; Valois, P.; Ajzen, I.; Schmidt, P. Using the theory of planned behavior to identify key beliefs underlying pro-environmental behavior in high-school students: Implications for educational interventions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 42, 128–138. [CrossRef]
Grunert, S.C.; Juhl, H.J. Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. J. Econ. Psychol. 1995, 16, 39–62. [CrossRef]
Han, Z.; Zeng, D.; Li, Q.; Cheng, C.; Shi, G.; Mou, Z. Public willingness to pay and participate in domestic waste management in rural areas of China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 140, 166–174. [CrossRef]
Thøgersen, J. Spillover processes in the development of a sustainable consumption pattern. J. Econ. Psychol. 1999, 20, 53–81. [CrossRef]
Thøgersen, J.; Crompton, T. Simple and Painless? The Limitations of Spillover in Environmental Campaigning. J. Consum. Policy 2009, 32, 141–163. [CrossRef]
Truelove, H.B.; Carrico, A.; Weber, E.U.; Raimi, K.T.; Vandenbergh, M.P. Positive and negative spillover of pro-environmental behavior: An integrative review and theoretical framework. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 127–138. [CrossRef]
Penz, E.; Hartl, B.; Hofmann, E. Explaining consumer choice of low carbon footprint goods using the behavioral spillover effect in German-speaking countries. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 429–439. [CrossRef]
Riera, O.; Swinnen, J. Household level spillover effects from biofuels: Evidence from castor in Ethiopia. Food Policy 2016, 59, 55–65. [CrossRef]
Geng, L.; Chen, Y.; Ye, L.; Zhou, K.; Chen, Y. How to predict future pro-environmental intention? The spillover effect of electricity-saving behavior under environmental and monetary framing. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1029–1037. [CrossRef]
Valone, T.J.; Templeton, J.J. Public information for the assessment of quality: A widespread social phenomenon. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2002, 357, 1549–1557. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Blanchet, S.; Clobert, J.; Danchin, É. The role of public information in ecology and conservation: An emphasis on inadvertent social information. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1195, 149–168. [CrossRef]
Borra, S.T.; Bouchoux, A. Effects of Science and the Media on Consumer Perceptions about Dietary Sugars. J. Nutr. 2009, 139, 1214S–1218S. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Borda, D.; Mihalache, O.A.; Dumitraşcu, L.; Gafițianu, D.; Nicolau, A.I. Romanian consumers’ food safety knowledge, awareness on certified labelled food and trust in information sources. Food Control 2021, 120, 107544. [CrossRef]
Meijer, A.; Thaens, M. Public information strategies: Making government information available to citizens. Inf. Polity 2009, 14, 31–45. [CrossRef]
Holma, A.-M. Interpersonal interaction in business triads—Case studies in corporate travel purchasing. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2012, 18, 101–112. [CrossRef]
Mastrobuoni, G. The role of information for retirement behavior: Evidence based on the stepwise introduction of the Social Security Statement. J. Public Econ. 2011, 95, 913–925. [CrossRef]
Kabunga, N.; Dubois, T.; Qaim, M. Heterogeneous information exposure and technology adoption: The case of tissue culture bananas in Kenya. Agric. Econ. 2012, 43, 473–486. [CrossRef]
Kurihara, S.; Maruyama, A.; Shimoura, S.; Nishiyama, M.; Luloff, A.E.; Hirose, M.; Matsuda, T. Research about the influence of food safety information on consumer behavior. HortResearch 2006, 60, 99–108.
Nilsson, A.; Bergquist, M.; Schultz, W.P. Spillover effects in environmental behaviors, across time and context: A review and research agenda. Environ. Educ. Res. 2017, 23, 573–589. [CrossRef]
Albornoz, F.; Cole, M.A.; Elliott, R.J.; Ercolani, M.G. The environmental actions of firms: Examining the role of spillovers, networks and absorptive capacity. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 146, 150–163. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ek, C.; Miliute-Plepiene, J. Behavioral spillovers from food-waste collection in Swedish municipalities. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2018, 89, 168–186. [CrossRef]
Whitmarsh, L.; O’Neill, S. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 305–314. [CrossRef]
Holbert, R.L.; Kwak, N.; Shah, D.V. Environmental Concern, Patterns of Television Viewing, and Pro-Environmental Behaviors: Integrating Models of Media Consumption and Effects. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2003, 47, 177–196. [CrossRef]
Hess, S. Latent class structures: Taste heterogeneity and beyond. In Handbook of Choice Modelling; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2014; pp. 311–330.
Hawkins, D.I.; Best, R.J.; Coney, K.A. Consumer Behavior: Building Marketing Strategy; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 17–18.
Latacz-Lohmann, U.; Foster, C. From “niche” to “mainstream”-strategies for marketing organic food in Germany and the UK. Br. Food J. 1997, 99, 275–282. [CrossRef]
Kaida, N.; Kaida, K. Spillover effect of congestion charging on pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2015, 17, 409–421. [CrossRef]
Eby, B.; Carrico, A.R.; Truelove, H.B. The influence of environmental identity labeling on the uptake of pro-environmental behaviors. Clim. Chang. 2019, 155, 563–580. [CrossRef]
Latinopoulos, D.; Mentis, C.; Bithas, K. The impact of a public information campaign on preferences for marine environmental protection. The case of plastic waste. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 131, 151–162. [CrossRef]
Duerden, M.D.; Witt, P.A. The impact of direct and indirect experiences on the development of environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. J. Environ. Psychol. 2010, 30, 379–392. [CrossRef]
Telford, R.; Boote, J.D.; Cooper, C.L. What does it mean to involve consumers successfully in NHS research? A consensus study. Health Expect. 2004, 7, 209–220. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Klopčič, M.; Slokan, P.; Erjavec, K. Consumer preference for nutrition and health claims: A multi-methodological approach. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 82, 103863. [CrossRef]
Chekima, B.; Wafa, S.A.W.S.K.; Igau, O.A.; Chekima, S.; Sondoh, S.L. Examining green consumerism motivational drivers: Does premium price and demographics matter to green purchasing? J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 3436–3450. [CrossRef]
Grasso, S.; Asioli, D. Consumer preferences for upcycled ingredients: A case study with biscuits. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 84, 103951. [CrossRef]
Nordlund, A.M.; Garvill, J. Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environ. Behav. 2002, 34, 740–756. [CrossRef]
Fujii, S. Environmental concern, attitude toward frugality, and ease of behavior as determinants of pro-environmental behavior intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 2006, 26, 262–268. [CrossRef]
Whitmarsh, L. Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. J. Environ. Psychol. 2009, 29, 13–23. [CrossRef]
Korfiatis, K.J.; Hovardas, T.; Pantis, J.D. Determinants of Environmental Behavior in Societies in Transition: Evidence from Five European Countries. Popul. Environ. 2003, 25, 563–584. [CrossRef]
Lindenberg, S.; Steg, L. Normative, Gain and Hedonic Goal Frames Guiding Environmental Behavior. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 117–137. [CrossRef]
China Green Manure Research System. 2019. Available online: http://123.127.160.231/index.do?method=personal&userId=3074 &product=021&productName (accessed on 15 March 2018).
National Bureau of Statistics of China. Urban Socio-Economic Survey Division. In China City Statistical Yearbook 2018; China Statistics Press: Beijing, China, 2018.
Si, H.; Shi, J.-G.; Tang, D.; Wu, G.; Lan, J. Understanding intention and behavior toward sustainable usage of bike sharing by extending the theory of planned behavior. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104513. [CrossRef]
Wang, B.; Hong, G.; Qin, T.; Fan, W.-R.; Yuan, X.-C. Factors governing the willingness to pay for air pollution treatment: A case study in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 235, 1304–1314. [CrossRef]
Ajzen, I. Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [CrossRef]
Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psycho. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [CrossRef]
Stenqvist, C.; Nilsson, L.J. National Report on the Energy Efficiency Service Business in Sweden; Technology & Engineering Lund University: Lund, Sweden, 2009.
Zaharah SF, A.; Rusli, Y.M.; Alias, R. Consumers’ Response for Price Increment of Biodegradable Shopping Bags in Selected Hypermarkets in Selangor, Malaysia. Austra. J. Bas. Appl. Sci. 2014, 8, 536–544.
Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [CrossRef]
Tarka, P. An overview of structural equation modeling: Its beginnings, historical development, usefulness and controversies in the social sciences. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 313–354. [CrossRef]
Loebnitz, N.; Aschemann-Witzel, J. Communicating organic food quality in China: Consumer perceptions of organic products and the effect of environmental value priming. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 50, 102–108. [CrossRef]
Schöll, K.; Markemann, A.; Zárate, A.V. The Influence of Intervention Projects on Pig Production Marketing Groups in Vietnam. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 5, 122–126. [CrossRef]
Singh, A.; Verma, P. Factors influencing Indian consumers’ actual buying behaviour towards organic food products. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 473–483. [CrossRef]
Ahmad, I.A.H.H.; Jinap, S.; Nasir, M.S.; Alias, R.; Muhammad, A.K.S. Consumers’ demand and willingness to pay for rice attributes in Malaysia. Int. Food Res. J. 2012, 19, 363.
Wang, Y.; Min, Q.; Han, S. Understanding the effects of trust and risk on individual behavior toward social media platforms: A meta-analysis of the empirical evidence. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 56, 34–44. [CrossRef]
Dirks, K.T. The Effects of Interpersonal Trust on Work Group Performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 445–455. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zsóka, Á.; Szerényi, Z.M.; Széchy, A.; Kocsis, T. Greening due to environmental education? Environmental knowledge, attitudes, consumer behavior and everyday pro-environmental activities of Hungarian high school and university students. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 126–138. [CrossRef]
Pothitou, M.; Hanna, R.F.; Chalvatzis, K. Environmental knowledge, pro-environmental behaviour and energy savings in households: An empirical study. Appl. Energy 2016, 184, 1217–1229. [CrossRef]
Van der Werff, E.; Steg, L.; Keizer, K. I am what I am, by looking past the present: The influence of biospheric values and past behavior on environmental self-identity. Environ. Behav. 2013, 46, 626–657. [CrossRef]
Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C.; Rothengatter, T. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 273–291. [CrossRef]
Frick, J.; Kaiser, F.G.; Wilson, M.R. Environmental knowledge and conservation behavior: Exploring prevalence and structure in a representative sample. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2004, 37, 1597–1613. [CrossRef]
Zareie, B.; Navimipour, N.J. The impact of electronic environmental knowledge on the environmental behaviors of people. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 59, 1–8. [CrossRef]
Wang, X.; Lin, X.; Spencer, M.K. Exploring the effects of extrinsic motivation on consumer behaviors in social commerce: Revealing consumers’ perceptions of social commerce benefits. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 45, 163–175. [CrossRef]
Contini, C.; Boncinelli, F.; Marone, E.; Scozzafava, G.; Casini, L. Drivers of plant-based convenience foods consumption: Results of a multicomponent extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 84, 103931. [CrossRef]
Jin, H.; Lin, Z.; McLeay, F. Negative emotions, positive actions: Food safety and consumer intentions to purchase ethical food in China. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 85, 103981. [CrossRef]
