All Issue

2023 Vol.35, Issue 4 Preview Page

Research Article

Impact of Providing Carbon-Neutral Policy Information on the Willingness to Pay for Low-Carbon Salad

탄소중립정책 정보제공이 저탄소샐러드 지불의사금액에 미치는 영향

Jung-woo Suh1
,
Su-bin Kim2
,
Chan-soo Kim1
,
Sang Hyeon Lee3*
서 정우1
,
김 수빈2
,
김 찬수1
,
이 상현3*
1Undergraduate Student, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea
2Undergraduate Student, Department of History, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea
3Associate Professor, Department of Food and Resource Economics, Korea University, Seoul 02841, Korea
1고려대학교 식품자원경제학과 학사과정
2고려대학교 사학과 학사과정
3고려대학교 식품자원경제학과 부교수
*Corresponding Author
31 December 2023. pp. 434-453
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study assessed the effect of consumer perceptions of carbon-neutral policies on their willingness to pay (WTP) for “low-carbon certified salads” and the potential change in WTP after targeted education. Using conjoint analysis, we gauged the average WTP for salad attributes. After educating consumers on carbon-neutral measures, the average WTP surged by 811 won, highlighting the efficacy of education in policy comprehension. The profit margin for these salads stood at 1,653 won, indicating potential profitability through informed education. Upon segmenting respondents based on their carbon-neutrality awareness and carbon-reducing practices, high-awareness groups demonstrated a significant WTP increase; however, the low-awareness cohort showed negligible change, emphasizing the need for diversified education approaches.

Keywords
Choice experiment
Conjoint analysis
Difference-in-Difference
Low carbon certified agricultural products
Marginal willingness to pay
References
1
Ai, C., Norton, E. C. (2003) Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Econ Lett 80:123-129. 10.1016/S0165-1765(03)00032-6
2
Athey, S., Imbens, G. W. (2006) Identification and inference in nonlinear difference‐in‐differences models. Econometrica 74:431-497. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00668.x
3
Blundell, R., Dias, M. C. (2009) Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. J Human Resour 44:565-640. 10.1353/jhr.2009.0009
4
Carbon Neutral Practice Portal (2023) Five Areas of Carbon Neutral Life Practice. Retrieved from https://www.gihoo.or.kr/zerolife/menu.es?mid=a10102000000
5
Chakrabarty, M., Mukherjee, S. (2021) Financial inclusion and household welfare: an entropy-based consumption diversification approach. Eur J Dev Res 34:1-36. 10.1057/s41287-021-00431-y
6
Chuanmin, S., Xiaomin, Y., Yukun, Z., Chuanxi, S., Penghui, D. (2014) Consumer behavior on low-carbon agri-food purchase: a carbon labeling experimental study in China. AGR ECON-CZECH 60:133-146. 10.17221/20/2013-AGRICECON
7
Green, P. E., Srinivasan, V. (1978) Conjoint analysis in consumer research: issues and outlook. J Consumer Res 5:103-123. 10.1086/208721
8
Ha, J. Y., Lim, S. H. (2022) Analysis of Salad Purchaser Types and Purchasing Behavior through Social Network Analysis. J Quality Manag 50:287-304.
9
Jin, H. J., Geum, S. H. (2011) Analysis of the Importance and Influencing Factors of Price Variables in the Purchase of Eco-Friendly Agricultural Products. Korean Distribution Assoc 16:105-133.
10
Jung, H. G., Kim, Y. J., Lee, H. J. (2016) Strategies for Activating Low-Carbon Agriculture in Response to the New Climate Regime. Korea Rural Economic Institute. Retrieved from https://www.krei.re.kr/krei/researchReportView.do?key=67&biblioId=396855&pageType=010101&pageUnit=10&searchCnd=all&searchKrwd=&pageIndex=359&engView=
11
Kim, H., House, L. A., Kim, T. K. (2016) Consumer perceptions of climate change and willingness to pay for mandatory implementation of low carbon labels: The case of South Korea. Int Food Agribusiness Manag Rev 19:129-144. 10.22434/IFAMR2015.0095
12
Kim, N. Y. (2019) Evaluation of Government Projects Using the Difference-in-Differences (DiD) Method: Focusing on the Effect of Meister High School Support Projects. J Policy Anal Eval 29:141-167.
13
Kim, S. H., Lee, C. S. (2021) Consumer Perception and Willingness to Pay for Vegetables Produced Using Renewable Energy. J Organic Agric 29:485-505.
14
Kim, W. Y., Lee, C. S., Yang, S. R. (2015) Awareness and Economic Ripple Effect Analysis of the Low-Carbon Agricultural Product Certification System. Agric Manag Policy Res 42:631-659.
15
Lee, J. H., Lee, B. O. (2016) Analysis of the Determining Factors in Low-Carbon Agricultural Product Consumption. J Agric Life Environ Sci 28:35-42.
16
Lee, J. S., Yeom, J. Y., Lim, C. E., Kim, K. H. (2022) Study on Promoting Green Product Purchases Based on Consumer Environmental Ethics. Korea Environmental Institute. Retrieved from https://www.kei.re.kr/elibList.es?mid=a10101010000&elibName=researchreport&c_id=745126&act=view
17
Li, Q., Long, R., Chen, H. (2017) Empirical study of the willingness of consumers to purchase low-carbon products by considering carbon labels: A case study. J Clean Prod 161:1237-1250. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.154
18
McFadden, D. (1973) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econometrics. Academic Press 105-142.
19
National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service (2021) Eco-friendly Certification Statistics: Agricultural Products. n.p.: National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service.
20
Oh, E. J. (2021, September 29) Only 1 in 5 Urban Residents Know About the 'Low-Carbon Agricultural Product Certification System'. Farmers' Newspaper. Retrieved from https://www.nongmin.com/345174
21
Park, S. H., Ji, H. S., Yu, G. H., Kim, T. Y. (2023) Consumer Consumption Tendency and Behavior Study on Low-Carbon Certified Agricultural Products. J Agric Life Sci 57:141-146. 10.14397/jals.2023.57.2.141
22
Public Data Portal (2021) Status of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Certified Farms. n.p.: National Agricultural Products Quality Management Service.
23
Puhani, P. A. (2012) The treatment effect, the cross difference, and the interaction term in nonlinear "difference-in-differences" models. Econ Lett 115:85-87. 10.1016/j.econlet.2011.11.025
24
Srivastava, A., Mohanty, S. K. (2010) Economic proxies, household consumption and health estimates. Econ Polit Wkly 45:55-63. 10.1007/s00199-009-0476-7
25
Wooldridge, J. M. (2015) Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Cengage learning.
26
World Bank (2010) Handbook on Impact Evaluation.
27
Yang, S. B., Yang, S. R. (2011) Willingness to Pay Analysis for Domestic Rice Wine Using Conjoint and Hedonic Models. J Food Distrib Res 28:57-77.
28
Yoon, S. E. (2023, April 19) Why is Promotion Lacking in the Rise of Low-Carbon Certified Agricultural Products? Eco Korea. Retrieved from https://www.ekoreanews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=66526
29
Zhao, R., Zhong, S. (2015) Carbon labelling influences on consumers' behaviour: A system dynamics approach. Ecol Indic 51:98-106. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.08.030
Information
  • Publisher :Agriculture and Life Sciences Research Institute, Kangwon National University
  • Publisher(Ko) :강원대학교 농업생명과학대학 농업생명과학연구원
  • Journal Title :Journal of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences
  • Journal Title(Ko) :농업생명환경연구
  • Volume : 35
  • No :4
  • Pages :434-453
  • Received Date : 2023-09-18
  • Revised Date : 2023-11-17
  • Accepted Date : 2023-11-19
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.22698/jales.20230035
Journal Informaiton Journal of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences Journal of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences
Online Submission & Review System
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • KISTI Current Status
  • KISTI Cited-by
  • KCI 문헌 유사도 검사
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close