Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/recore/v115y2016icp1-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability

Author

Listed:
  • Klaiman, Kimberly
  • Ortega, David L.
  • Garnache, Cloé
Abstract
An increase in the amount of packaging consumed in the U.S. has put pressure on companies to take responsibility for the entire life-cycle of their product. This study uses discrete choice experiments to assess consumer willingness to pay (WTP) for packaging materials and recyclability of a beverage product. A between-subject design was used to analyze the effectiveness of indirect questioning in addressing issues of social desirability bias as well as the effects of information on consumer behavior. Consumer WTP for packaging material was highest for plastic packaging, followed by glass, carton and aluminum. Our empirical analysis reveals that indirect questioning results in WTP values for packaging recyclability that are 60% lower than those obtained from direct questioning. We find that information from a video treatment had a significant and positive effect on consumer preferences and demand for packaging recyclability. Our results suggest that more scrutiny should be placed on studies that do not address social desirability bias when evaluating recycling behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaiman, Kimberly & Ortega, David L. & Garnache, Cloé, 2016. "Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-8.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:115:y:2016:i:c:p:1-8
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344916302130
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferreira, Sandra & Marques, Rui Cunha, 2015. "Contingent valuation method applied to waste management," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 111-117.
    2. Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Martinsson, Peter, 2006. "Honestly, why are you driving a BMW?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 129-146, June.
    3. Babaei, Ali Akbar & Alavi, Nadali & Goudarzi, Gholamreza & Teymouri, Pari & Ahmadi, Kambiz & Rafiee, Mohammad, 2015. "Household recycling knowledge, attitudes and practices towards solid waste management," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 94-100.
    4. Glynn T. Tonsor & Robert S. Shupp, 2011. "Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: "Looking Beyond the Mean"," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(4), pages 1015-1031.
    5. David L. Ortega & H. Holly Wang & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar, 2015. "Effects of media headlines on consumer preferences for food safety, quality and environmental attributes," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(3), pages 433-445, July.
    6. Laura O. Taylor & Ronald G. Cummings, 1999. "Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(3), pages 649-665, June.
    7. W. Bruce Traill, 2004. "Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 179-204, June.
    8. Martinho, Graça & Pires, Ana & Portela, Gonçalo & Fonseca, Miguel, 2015. "Factors affecting consumers’ choices concerning sustainable packaging during product purchase and recycling," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 58-68.
    9. Joonas Rokka & Liisa Uusitalo, 2008. "Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices : Do consumers care?," Post-Print hal-02313351, HAL.
    10. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    11. Fielding, Kelly S. & van Kasteren, Yasmin & Louis, Winnifred & McKenna, Bernard & Russell, Sally & Spinks, Anneliese, 2016. "Using individual householder survey responses to predict household environmental outcomes: The cases of recycling and water conservation," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 90-97.
    12. Fisher, Robert J, 1993. "Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 20(2), pages 303-315, September.
    13. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "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, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    14. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    15. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, October.
    16. Jayson L. Lusk, 2003. "Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Golden Rice," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(4), pages 840-856.
    17. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2009. "An Inferred Valuation Method," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 500-514.
    18. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    19. Olynk, Nicole J. & Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2010. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Livestock Credence Attribute Claim Verification," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 1-20, August.
    20. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    21. F. Bailey Norwood & Jayson L. Lusk, 2011. "Social Desirability Bias in Real, Hypothetical, and Inferred Valuation Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 528-534.
    22. Brécard, Dorothée & Hlaimi, Boubaker & Lucas, Sterenn & Perraudeau, Yves & Salladarré, Frédéric, 2009. "Determinants of demand for green products: An application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 115-125, November.
    23. Lane, Gordon W.S. & Wagner, Travis P., 2013. "Examining recycling container attributes and household recycling practices," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 32-40.
    24. Saphores, Jean-Daniel M. & Nixon, Hilary, 2014. "How effective are current household recycling policies? Results from a national survey of U.S. households," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-10.
    25. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    26. David Aadland & Arthur J. Caplan, 2003. "Willingness to Pay for Curbside Recycling with Detection and Mitigation of Hypothetical Bias," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(2), pages 492-502.
    27. Sidique, Shaufique F. & Joshi, Satish V. & Lupi, Frank, 2010. "Factors influencing the rate of recycling: An analysis of Minnesota counties," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(4), pages 242-249.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    3. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    4. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    5. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    6. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Owusu, Rebecca & Dadzie, Samuel Kwesi Ndzebah, 2021. "Heterogeneity in consumer preferences for organic and genetically modified food products in Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(2), June.
    9. Penn, Jerrod & Hu, Wuyang, 2016. "Making the Most of Cheap Talk in an Online Survey," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236171, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Kassie, Girma T. & Zeleke, Fresenbet & Birhanu, Mulugeta Y. & Scarpa, Riccardo, 2020. "Reminder Nudge, Attribute Nonattendance, and Willingness to Pay in a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304208, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Macro-scale analysis of literature and effectiveness of bias mitigation methods," Papers 2102.02945, arXiv.org.
    12. Van Wezemael, Lynn & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Chryssochoidis, George & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "European consumer preferences for beef with nutrition and health claims: A multi-country investigation using discrete choice experiments," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 167-176.
    13. Lava Yadav & Thomas M. van Rensburg & Hugh Kelley, 2013. "A Comparison Between the Conventional Stated Preference Technique and an Inferred Valuation Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 405-422, June.
    14. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Richartz, P. Christoph & Abdulai, Awudu & Kornher, Lukas, 2020. "Attribute Non Attendance and Consumer Preferences for Online Food Products in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(1), March.
    16. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    17. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    18. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    19. Chad M. Baum & Robert Weigelt, 2019. "How Where I Shop Influences What I Buy: The Importance of the Retail Format in Sustainable Tomato Consumption," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Andreas Chai & Chad M. Baum (ed.), Demand, Complexity, and Long-Run Economic Evolution, pages 141-169, Springer.
    20. Courtney Bir & Nicole Olynk Widmar, 2020. "Consistently biased: documented consistency in self-reported holiday healthfulness behaviors and associated social desirability bias," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:recore:v:115:y:2016:i:c:p:1-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kai Meng (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/resources-conservation-and-recycling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.