Next Article in Journal
Effect of Soil Agricultural Use on Particle-Size Distribution in Young Glacial Landscape Slopes
Next Article in Special Issue
The Evolution Model of and Factors Influencing Digital Villages: Evidence from Guangxi, China
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Cutting Stability of a Natural-Rubber-Tapping Robot
Previous Article in Special Issue
Important Policy Parameters for the Development of Inclusive Digital Agriculture: Implications for the Redistributive Land Reform Program in South Africa
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/agriculture13030585
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Value of Crop Diversification: Understanding the Factors Influencing Consumers’ WTP for Pasta from Sustainable Agriculture

by
Eleonora Sofia Rossi
1,
José A. Zabala
2,
Francesco Caracciolo
3,* and
Emanuele Blasi
4
1
Department of Economics, Engineering, Society and Business Organization (DEIM), University of Tuscia, Via del Paradiso 47, 01100 Viterbo, Italy
2
Departamento de Economía de la Empresa, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Paseo Alfonso XIII, 48, 30203 Cartagena, Spain
3
Economics and Policy Group, Department of Agricultural Sciences, BAT-Center for Studies on Bioinspired Agro-Environmental Technology, University of Naples “Federico II” Via Università, 96-80055 Portici, Italy
4
Agricultural and Food Economics, Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-Food and Forest Systems (DIBAF), University of Tuscia, Via San Camillo del Lellis snc-, 01100 Viterbo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(3), 585; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030585
Submission received: 6 February 2023 / Revised: 23 February 2023 / Accepted: 24 February 2023 / Published: 27 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Developing the Evidence Base for Rural Development Policies and Interventions to Address Novel and Emerging Societal Problems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: The pressure that agricultural systems’ intensive management exerts on the environment concerns society. For this reason, the demand for sustainable foods is growing in the market. This study investigated consumers’ Willingness To Pay (WTP) for dry semolina pasta produced with raw materials from more diversified agricultural systems and which factors influence this choice. (2) Methods: The data, collected through a contingent valuation exercise, involved 185 Italian consumers. Through a Tobit model, the drivers influencing the WTP were selected. A latent class cluster analysis determined four different groups of consumers. (3) Results: The data highlighted a real social demand for sustainability. Consumers recognize a higher WTP for sustainable pasta. This value is influenced by drivers such as purchasing habits, personal characteristics, and environmental attitudes. (4) Conclusions: This work offers an approach, both from a market and political point of view, to how this higher potential WTP could be identified and redistributed among the value chain actors by structuring both marketing strategies for the different types of consumers and political tools able to help agri-food chains towards sustainability transition.

1. Introduction

The pressure on the environment from the agricultural systems’ intensive management concerns consumers and society as a whole. The growing awareness that food choices influence food supply systems and their social impact is driving demand for more sustainable or environmentally friendly food products on the market [1,2,3,4].
The changes in food demand are driving significant transformations of the agri-food chains, in which all the actors are involved in the transition [5,6]. Examples of this are production protocols, public or private, which guarantee and certify agricultural products’ environmental sustainability [7,8,9]. This approach, on the one hand, tries to respond to consumers’ needs and, on the other, to create value for agri-food chain actors [10,11]. In the transition process of the supply chains, from conventional to sustainable, it is necessary to understand the drivers of change, in which consumers seem to play a key role. To justify actors’ efforts, primarily the agricultural producers, it is crucial to know the factors that drive consumers to purchase eco-friendly foodstuffs and to make them recognize a potential greater Willingness To Pay (WTP) for them.
Scientific evidence suggests that these behaviors are driven both by the characteristics of individuals and by effective communication of the sustainability attribute.
Some authors have shown that purchasing habits and personal factors (socio-demographic variables) and psychological factors (sensitivity to ethics, environment and social issues) influence eco-friendly agri-food product choice [12,13,14,15,16]. Furthermore, several consumer studies have highlighted that agri-food products with sustainability attributes have a higher WTP than conventional ones [1,17,18,19,20].
Although the literature has widely focused on this theme, the most investigated aspects mainly concern products with high added value, such as wine, and those certified by organic certification [21,22,23,24,25,26]. Due to these features, it is difficult to generalize the results to other types of products, such as commodities, and other farming practices equally related to achieving sustainability. Despite the revealed environmental and socio-economic benefits of alternative and sustainable practices, such as crop diversification [27,28,29], the literature presents few works that investigate, from a market point of view, the recognition of a potential added value for products deriving from this type of sustainable agricultural practice [29]. Moreover, the growing demand for eco-friendly products has led the agri-food industry to develop sustainable consumer products. Previous studies on commodities, such as pasta, focused mainly on sustainability issues related to healthiness [4,30,31,32]. Despite these inputs, the assessment of the drivers behind sustainable purchasing and a price premium recognition for mass-market products have not been fully explored.
In this literature gap, the present study aims to evaluate the WTP of Italian consumers for a dry semolina pasta produced from more diversified agricultural systems and understand the drivers that determine this WTP. Specifically, among the drivers of the eco-friendly purchasing process, the focus will be on individual sociodemographic characteristics and environmental attitudes by evaluating the influence exerted on the WTP for this foodstuff. The value will be elicited through the responses to a questionnaire based on stated preference methods, a Contingent Valuation (CV).
In Italy, the pasta supply chain represents a strategic agri-food sector. The existing information gaps make it difficult to reconstruct the value distribution among the players, i.e., agricultural producers, the milling industry, the pasta industry and distributors [33,34,35,36,37]. From Nielsen 2018 sources, out of €100 spent on dry semolina pasta purchases, wheat producers only received a share of €24.10 [38].
Given this context, this work contributes to the ongoing literature from a three-fold perspective. First, from the theoretical side, it helps to improve knowledge about social preferences for sustainable commodities, and the value that society recognizes in these product categories depending on needs, circumstances, and attitudes. Secondly, from an empirical point of view, understanding the recognition of potential added value for this sustainable product typology would be crucial to compensate the supply chain actors’ effort towards the transition towards sustainability. In particular, this would be important because it could affect the acceptance of more sustainable farming practices by farmers. Thirdly, from a political point of view, understanding the effective social demand for products resulting from more sustainable agricultural practices could help policy makers to develop tools capable of encouraging supply chains’ sustainable transition path and supporting the greater efforts of the actors, such as agricultural producers, while responding to the needs of society.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Study Area Description

The case study is located in the pedoclimatic region of the Northern Mediterranean, precisely in the Po Valley. The study examined three municipalities in the Emilia Romagna region: Modena, Reggio Emilia and Parma (Figure 1).
The Po river basin holds 70% of the Italian agricultural area, mainly managed by professional farms specialized in cereals and horticulture through intensive production models. The primary sector’s relevance led to a significant concentration of agri-food industries, compared to other Italian regions. This structure of local economic systems, including the agricultural sector, negatively affects strategic natural resources by generating soil degradation, loss of fertility and biodiversity, water pollution and high CO2 emissions [39,40,41]. Agricultural sustainable practices adopted by farmers could act to mitigate these issues and at the same time provide sustainable raw materials production. Crop rotation with the inclusion of an oilseed or legume, nutrient management tools, minimum tillage practices, and the presence of non-productive areas in the arable farms would act on the environmental problems generated by years of intensive soil management [42,43,44,45].
Focusing on the cereal sector, only 7.3% of the surface of durum wheat is concentrated in the Po Valley (5% only in Emilia Romagna), but the high yields allow it to reach over 12% of national production [46]. The dry semolina pasta industry is one of the Italian agri-food sector’s strategic supply chains and leaders at the international level. The area presents a high concentration of several stakeholders from the pasta supply chain. In Northern Italy are located 47% of the cereals elevators (25% between Emilia Romagna and Lombardia regions), 56% of the milling industry, and big industrial groups, including sector leaders operating on the international market [47]. In this study, the sustainability attribute of pasta is achieved through the adoption, at the farm level, of agricultural practices aimed to increase crop diversity (e.g., rotation) and biodiversity (e.g., introducing non-productive areas). The adoption of these practices allows for achieving, at the same time, high-quality products and natural resources impact reduction [11,43,48,49]. Due to this, such actions’ implementation is supported both by policies, e.g., included in the PAC reform 23–27, and by private brands’ standards, e.g., required on cultivation contracts [13,48].

2.2. Methodological Framework

This study investigates how socio-demographic and attitudinal drivers influence the WTP for dry semolina pasta from more diversified agricultural systems. As suggested in other studies, e.g., Zabala et al. [50], different methodologies have been used to achieve this goal. WTP values were elicited by an open question based on the contingent valuation method, while the heterogeneity analysis has been developed by the use of Tobit models and latent class cluster (LCC) analysis. Figure 2 summarizes the process followed in the research framework for its better understanding.

2.2.1. Contingent Valuation Method

In Contingent Valuation, respondents are asked to hypothetically express their willingness to pay for a specific good/service. The WTP, starting from the theory of consumer choices and utility maximization, allows measuring the “strength” of the individual’s preferences in economic terms for a specific good/service [51]. With the CV belonging to the stated preference (SP) methods, it is possible to estimate the value of the WTP for goods/services starting from a hypothetical but realistic scenario [52,53].
Considering a hypothetical scenario, however, the interviewees may incur an underestimation or an overestimation of the declared values for several reasons, including social acceptability for sensitive issues such as the environment [54,55]. To avoid hypothetical or strategic bias, it is necessary to adopt some mitigation actions such as the cheap talk method [56,57,58].
In this study, statements aimed at contextualizing the scenario were included in the survey to minimize bias, also providing clear information on the more sustainable agricultural practices referred to. The valuation scenario comprehended therefore not only the common attributes defining conventional pasta purchases, but also the environmental and social benefits that may be derived from the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices along the agri-food value chain. The valuation question addressed the maximum willingness to pay for purchasing pasta produced by using more diversified agricultural systems. In particular, crop diversification was used as the particular case study for such sustainable agricultural practices. The hypothesis tested here is, therefore, that there exists an actual social demand for sustainable foodstuffs, providing higher benefits for the different agents of the agri-food value chain. The contingent valuation method elicited the maximum willingness to pay through an open-ended question “What is your maximum willingness to pay for the purchase of food products from diversified agricultural systems?”. The payment vehicle was the monthly household expenditure on pasta.

2.2.2. Drivers of Social Demand, Survey Design and Sampling

Considering the purpose of the study, a questionnaire structured in several sections was developed. Each of its sections was designed with the purpose of addressing the different drivers that may affect the social demand for sustainable foodstuffs. These includes sociodemographic characteristics, purchase habits, the relationship with agroecosystems, and environmental attitudes. De facto, the first three groups of drivers could be categorized as objective drivers, whilst the last one comprehends subjective aspects driving social demand for foodstuffs. Figure 3 summarizes the main drivers assessed.
The first block of the questionnaire included questions related to the degree of involvement in agroecosystems and sustainable agricultural practices awareness. The second section, introduced by an opening statement that contextualized the hypothetical scenario, provided for the CV. The CV’s open question requested interviewees to declare their maximum willingness to pay for the pasta produced with the durum wheat obtained from the more sustainable agricultural systems illustrated in the opening statement. The value was expressed in €/month. The third block consisted of questions regarding the main sociodemographic variables, such as gender, age, household size.
The fourth section Investigated the interviewees’ personal attitudes towards the environment. Understanding these factors is essential to define the factors that influence individuals about this topic. The measurement and interpretation of this aspect is not an easy task. Various scales developed in the literature can evaluate different aspects of attitude towards the environment [59]. For the research, in addition to some multiple-choice questions, a series of items were included referring to the degree of environmental commitment based on the scale proposed by Maloney et al. [60]. The Environmental Commitment Index (ECI) develops in three different sub-categories (Table 1): affective commitment (ECI-A), which investigates the feelings generated by environmental problems, verbal commitment (ECI-V), which concerns declarations on willingness to overcome these problems, and real commitment (ECI-R), which analyzes the actions really implemented to solve this issue. Each statement was rated by using a five-point Likert scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Individuals who present higher values, therefore a better attitude towards the environment, should be the most interested in sustainability attributes of the agri-food products.
The questionnaire was submitted in March 2019 for a pilot test to 15 people. In May 2019, it was distributed with face-to-face interviews and a random sampling method in the municipalities of Parma, Reggio Emilia and Modena. The spaces selected were public spaces such as squares, parks, city centers and suburbs at different times of the day. The final sample comprises 185 individuals chosen through the random choice of one person for every three passers-by.

2.2.3. Econometric Analysis

Tobit Model

The WTP values from the open-ended CV question are modelled as a function of the sociodemographic characteristics, purchase habits, relationships with agriculture, and environmental attitudes by using a Tobit model. The Tobit model is used instead of the traditional ordinary-least-squares model given the censored and non-negative data from the open-ended CV questions, which is left anchored to zero [61]. The model was specified as follows:
W T P i = { W T P i *           i f   W T P i * > 0           0                   i f   W T P i * ≤ 0             i = 1 ,   2 ,   … , n
W T P i * = β 0 + β 1 x 1 i + … + β k x k i + ε i = β 0 + β X i + ε i ,               ε i ~ N ( 0 , σ 2 )
where WTPi and WTPi* are the stated and underlying latent maximum WTP, βk are the estimated coefficients for the Xk drivers of the WTP, εi is a normally distributed error term and n represents the overall sample.
However, the estimated coefficients do not directly express the marginal WTP. So, this was calculated for each driver Xk as follows [62]:
∂ E ( W T P | X ) ∂ x k = β k Φ ( X ′ ¯ β σ )
where Φ ( X ′ ¯ β σ ) represents the underlying normal distribution evaluated at the mean value of the drivers.

Latent Class Cluster Analysis

Selected drivers among sociodemographic characteristics, purchase habits and relationships with agriculture were employed for an in-depth analysis by developing a latent class cluster (LCC). It provides an understanding of how the WTP is distributed across the sample in a direct and straightforward way [63].
The LCC model for continuous variables was estimated assuming non-correlated variables within classes and no covariates [64]:
f ( y i | θ ) = ∑ r = 1 R π r f r ( y i | θ r )
π r = exp ( δ r ) ∑ r = 1 R exp ( δ r ) ,         δ 1 = 0   f o r   n o r m a l i z a t i o n
where y i is a vector of drivers, θ is a vector of estimated coefficients, R is the number of latent classes and π r is the prior probability of belonging to latent class r . Drivers y i are assumed to be distributed following a mixture of class-specific normal densities, f r ( y i | θ r ) .
The LCC model was estimated by the maximum likelihood method and using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) to determine the number of classes. Within-class Tobit models were also estimated for understanding the impact of subjective drivers (environmental attitudes) on such behavior. Ultimately, a post-hoc assessment of the main attributes for purchasing sustainable pasta according to the classes was developed.

3. Results

3.1. Sample Description

The characteristics of the interviewed sample are shown in Table 2. The average age is 47 years old and around 51% are women. Almost 50% of the respondents have a medium level of education, i.e., a diploma or equivalent qualifications.
The residence location variable shows rurality in which the interviewees are “included”, and almost 90% of the sample lives between the city center and residential districts. Of the total sample, 55.68% own fields directly or through family members, but only 41% regularly visit agro-ecosystems. Despite this, 80% are aware of the main sustainable agricultural practices.
Concerning the variables related to environmental attitudes, the interviewees declared their commitment through a five-point Likert scale. The ECIs decreased from 4.84 for affective commitments (ECI-Affective), to 3.40 for verbal commitments (ECI-Verbal) and 2.02 for real actions (ECI-Real), which reveals the goodness of the results, as presented in other studies in the literature [50].

3.2. The Economic Value of Sustainable Produced Pasta

The results of the CV exercise served to transform into monetary terms the actual willingness of consumers for purchasing sustainably produced foodstuffs. A first descriptive analysis relating to the open question used for the CV shows an average WTP of 3.65 €/household/month for pasta with sustainability attributes. Looking at this value, some general considerations can be observed. A comparison with the ISTAT data [65] for the average monthly expenditure for “pasta and couscous” equal to 4.86 €/person/month reveals that society is willing to increase the price paid for pasta in about 26% of consumers if it is sustainably produced.
The estimated WTP values reveal the consumer surplus available. Understanding the reasons (and drivers) that determine such consumer surplus will aid the agents of the agrifood value chain and policy makers to derive actions and policies to capture it. The following subsections will delve into the reasons behind such values.

3.2.1. Social Demand for Sustainable Produced Pasta

Social demand for sustainable produced pasta is derived from its WTP and the factors that interfere with such demand. Socio-demographic characteristics, purchasing habits, the relationship with agriculture, and environmental attitudes were tested as drivers. Two models were estimated: Model 1, which includes all the considered drivers, and Model 2, restricted to only the significant drivers at the 90% level. Both models are shown in Table 3. Model 2 performed better than Model 1 in terms of AIC and BIC; therefore, Model 2 was used for better exploring social preferences.
In accordance with the socio-demographic drivers, only age and household size were found to be significant to explain the WTP for sustainably produced pasta. The age coefficient displays a negative sign, showing that the higher the age, the lesser the likelihood of being willing to pay higher prices for sustainable foodstuffs. The WTP was found to decrease, on average and ceteris paribus, by 0.02 € for each one-year increase in age. Similarly, the household size was also a significant variable to understand the WTP for sustainable pasta. Again, its coefficient reveals a negative sign, showing that the larger the household size, the less it is willing to pay. In fact, any additional household member decreases the WTP, on average and ceteris paribus, by about 0.42 €. However, other socio-demographic variables, such as gender, age, education level or residence location, were not found significant to explain the WTP. This mostly reveals that consumers value sustainable foodstuffs independently of most of their socio-demographics, which evidences that it is not worthy to implement differentiated marketing and policy actions based on such variables.
Purchase habits do influence the WTP for sustainable foodstuffs. The sensitivity to change in prices is higher for those who most demand pasta, and so it is shown by the negative sign of its coefficient. Despite the social and individual benefits, even for health, that the consumption of sustainable foodstuffs may provide, the main consumers of pasta are not willing to increase their monthly expenditure. This is highly relevant for producers and retailers, and even policy makers, so that they would need to derive all their efforts for such type of consumers if a transition from conventional to sustainable agriculture is to be encouraged
The way in which people relate with agriculture has not resulted either in significantly explaining the WTP for sustainable pasta. Neither being aware of the sustainable agricultural practices developed by farmers nor owning family fields or visiting agroecosystems are relevant to influencing the consumer decisions about purchasing sustainable foodstuffs.
Environmental attitudes do have an influence on the purchasing behavior for sustainably produced foodstuffs. The affective and real side of the environmental commitment can explain the stated WTP values. Indeed, higher values of ECI-Affective are related to higher values of WTP, whilst ECI-Real is inversely related to the WTP for sustainably produced foodstuffs. Consumers that stated a higher degree of environmental concern tend to show higher WTP values. However, those who actually perform environmental actions to overcome environmental issues usually display lower WTP values. Although this may be unintuitive and contrary to what is expected, this situation becomes real when distrust arises. People who actually developed environmentally friendly actions in their ordinary life may sometimes show such kind of behavior, not because they do not really value the environmental and societal benefits that sustainable agricultural practices may provide, but because they are not fully informed about the actual benefits. Hence, only some socio-demographic characteristics, purchasing habits and environmental attitudes have been revealed as the main significant variables for explaining WTP for sustainably produced pasta.

3.2.2. Heterogeneity Analysis

The heterogeneity analysis may be widened to understand the relationships among such relevant factors and the WTP values themselves. Sociodemographic characteristics and purchasing habits were used as latent variables for the establishment of clearly defined groups of populations with similar purchasing power for sustainable foodstuffs. Such drivers were selected for the establishment of latent classes given their easiness for establishing groups of consumers in an objective way. Environmental attitudes, given their subjective nature, are used to improve the understanding of the preferences within each latent class. Again, Tobit models are used to model within-class functions. Table 4 shows the integrated results from LCC analysis and within-class WTP functions.
The results from the LCC analysis allowed for establishing four classes of respondents according to their age, household size and purchase habits of cereal-derived products. The classes are well defined according to the age of the consumers, their household size, and their purchase habits. As such, class 1 includes elderly people, with an average age of 69 years old, their household being composed of two people, but with the lowest degree of pasta and bread purchasing: only 18% of its members expend the most in purchasing pasta. In sum, class 1 encompasses couples of elderly people, representing 35% of the sample. In contrast, class 2 also represents couples, but younger, with an average age of 34 years old, and, as expected from these factors, a higher degree of pasta and bread purchase habit, for which 27% of them usually expend the most in such products. Class 2 represents 19% of the total sample. Both class 3 and class 4 encompass families with an average household size of four members, but with different average ages and rates of pasta and bread purchases. Class 3 thereby is composed by consumers with an average age of 48 years old, becoming the class with the highest rate of pasta and bread purchasing. A total of 25% of the respondents are encompassed by class 3. Consumers belonging to class 4 are younger, with an average age of 24 years old, and a medium rate of pasta and bread purchasing, among which 24% stated that they usually expend the most in purchasing such kind of cereal-derived products. They represent 21% of the sample.
Environmental attitudes are characterized by their subjective nature. This makes them difficult to be used for practical clustering or segmentation of consumers. So, they have been used in the analysis for modeling the intensity of WTP responses within each of the classes previously determined. It serves to determine for which classes and how environmental attitudes are transformed into monetary values. The results from such within-class Tobit models show that only WTP values from class 1 and class 2 are really influenced by environmental attitudes, whilst class 3 and 4 depend only on the sociodemographic characteristics and purchase habits. As such, individuals from class 2 display a higher intensity on the impact of environmental attitudes regarding their WTP values. Both classes also show positive coefficients for the ECI-Affective, whilst the impact of ECI-Real is considered negative. As derived from the overall social demand, individuals who reveal a higher affective environmental commitment are also more willing to pay higher prices for the consumption of sustainable products. However, this pattern is not seen for those who really perform environmentally friendly actions, revealing that the more ECI-Real displayed, the less willing to pay they are. This gives rise to an issue of distrust, which is deeply embodied in class 2.
The heterogeneity analysis is not completed until the WTP values of each class are also assessed. Table 5 shows the WTP values for each class. Class 2 shows the highest WTP values, with a mean WTP 24% higher than the average for the sample. Further, class 1 reveals higher WTP than the sample average, which seems to show that those living as couples and with a medium and low rate of pasta purchasing are the ones more willing to increase the value of their pasta purchase if it derives from sustainable agricultural practices. In contrast, class 3 and class 4 show WTP values lower than the average, as expected from the higher rate of pasta purchasing and the greater household size. Such differences among classes and WTP values increase when the assessment is turned into unit values. Therefore, individuals from class 2 are willing to pay more than 1 €/kg pasta if derived from sustainable agriculture, whilst class 4 is willing to pay only 0.32 €/kg pasta.
In order to delve into the marketing and policy implications of the results, the assessment of purchasing preferences for sustainable pasta can be broadened to encompass also the importance of the main attributes of sustainable pasta for consumers according to their class. Table 6 shows the relative importance of the main attributes of sustainable pasta (price, quality, information) for the overall sample and the selected classes. As such, most of the classes, and so the whole sample, consider the quality of such pasta the main variable when planning its purchase, followed by the presence of trustful information about its origin and its actual and claimed sustainability. Price becomes the less important attribute for all the classes, except for class 1. However, what should be highlighted the most is the ranking of relative importance for class 2. Individuals within such classes consider the presence of trustful information about the claimed sustainability of the product as the main attribute to consider. It confirms the expectations about the distrust declared for such class, the same that concentrates individuals with the higher ECI-Real. The implications of these results for marketing and policy makers are expected to be of high importance and will be discussed in the next section.

4. Discussion

The present work aimed to provide empirical evidence of the drivers that can influence consumers in choosing sustainable dry semolina pasta and in recognizing a higher WTP potential. Specifically, the present work addressed this issue by trying to understand if some factors, such as environmental attitudes linked to environmental commitment, influenced this recognition process, which can be translated into a higher willingness to pay. The study is based on a sample of 185 Italian consumers. Pasta was chosen as the object of the analysis as a product with low added value but at the center of the Italian culinary tradition and the Mediterranean diet.
Overall, respondents showed that they were willing to pay about 25% more, compared to the real spending value currently incurred, for pasta with sustainability attributes. In other words, the average consumer is willing to pay more for public goods and ecosystem services provision generated by implementing more sustainable agricultural practices. This revealed the existence of social demand for purchasing sustainably produced foodstuffs, thus recognizing the value of sustainability. These results are in line with those obtained by Alcon et al. [28] and Latvala et al. [29] revealing the social demand for agricultural products from diversified agroecosystems with a higher provision of both regulating and cultural ecosystem services. Overall, environmental sustainability claims for a price premium of foodstuffs not only for pasta [4] but also for rice [66], meat, vegetables [67], beer [68] or even in a general way for convenient products [69](Wang et al., 2023). This is evinced in price premiums higher than 40% in the case of rice [66] or 50% in the case of pasta [4] compared to conventional products. In addition, together with environmental sustainability, social sustainability is becoming a recurrent topic in the literature, also showing large price premiums stated for foodstuffs produced by providing social sustainability benefits [70]. However, sustainability is not always revealed as a significant attribute to explain higher WTP for foodstuffs, instead of health and nutritional effects [4,71]), the origin of the products and the seasonality of the raw materials used [72,73].
The analysis of the WTP for sustainably produced foodstuffs allowed for determining the drivers that have a direct impact on its social demand. Sociodemographic characteristics, purchasing habits, relationship with agriculture and environmental attitudes were tested as drivers. This analysis thereby revealed that only age and household size (sociodemographic variables), the importance of purchasing pasta in the overall monthly expenditure (purchasing habits) and the environmental commitment (environmental attitudes) were the main drivers for determining the purchasing capacity of the respondents. Specifically, environmental attitudes, through the environmental commitment assessment, show there are consumers interested in the issue, who have a higher WTP. In addition to the positive effects on health and human well-being [74], pro-environmental behavior has been revealed as one of the most significant drivers determining the valuation for supporting sustainable management actions [64,75]. Indeed, age, pro-environmental behaviour and social demand for sustainable products are deeply related in the ongoing literature. Thus, young consumers, aged between 28–35 years, tend to reveal higher WTP for non-convenient sustainable food, such as chocolate [19] and wine [24]. Thereby, our results support the previous findings, showing that millennials reveal greater support to sustainability claims. In contrast, and regardless of the age of the respondents, environmental attitudes may not be the main source of economic value when they confront private goods and goods with use values [76]. Indeed, those who have revealed the highest real environmental commitment, despite their greatest WTP, seem to suggest that there is not a straightforward relationship with such WTP. As suggested by different authors [77,78], this is probably the reflection of the lack of confidence in the expected results that new agricultural practices may provide for both agroecosystems and socio-economic systems to ensure the sustainability of the agricultural sector. These results are fully supported by [79], who revealed that the scepticism about the presence of sustainability labels in food products is inversely related to the environmental concern of consumers and the environmental commitment declared by the producers.
The market seems capable of monetizing the value of the ecological transition path to a more sustainable scenario to compensate for loss of income or higher costs incurred by the supply chain agents, mainly switching costs for the transition. Sustainable practices, such as a crop diversification, have been revealed as positive, or at least, not negative for farm profitability [80,81]. However, some other monetary incentives are needed to ensure the transition for all the agents involved in the agri-food supply chains [82,83]. These results revealed that there exists a gap for increasing the sustainability in the production of foodstuffs, whose incentives can exist not only for the private side to capture the overall consumer surplus, but also for the public sector. Policy makers have a set of legal and economic tools to ensure sustainable products are available in markets, as the assessed social demand has revealed. Increasing the incentives for the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices, such as crop diversification and low-input practices, could be a feasible solution [84].
On the private sector side, the results can also be applied for producers and retailers to capture the overall consumer surplus for the sustainable products. The results from the heterogeneity analysis allowed for establishing well-defined segments of consumers according to their sociodemographic characteristics, purchasing habits, environmental attitudes and, even, their valuation of the main attributes of sustainable foodstuffs that need to be addressed for their purchase. This provides producers and retailers good insight on the strategies that they can implement in order to capture the available consumer surplus. Price discrimination is based on the idea that different prices can be applied to different consumers so that the maximum consumer surplus can be captured. Although first-degree price discrimination is theoretically pursued given that the whole consumer surplus is captured, it becomes challenging to be applied in practice. Second- and third-degree price discrimination become feasible when real applications are sought. Second-degree price discrimination is applied when different demand functions are recognized but the characteristics of the products cannot be clearly and objectively defined so that the consumer surplus is fully captured. In such case, producers offer a range of different products or packages designed in such a way that the consumers themselves select the one they prefer the most according to their preferences. As such, the products themselves have been defined considering the expected preferences of the consumers. The overall consumer surplus is not plenty extracted by the producer, but at least the maximum capable. Third-degree price discrimination assumes that consumers can be divided into clearly defined segments according to objective factors and within-segment similar preferences. Price discrimination based on consumer heterogeneity might be beneficial for reducing market frictions [85].
The results from the LCC analysis divided pasta consumers into four main segments, with different WTP values, and defined according to their age, household size and pasta purchasing habits. Despite that these variables are plenty objective and allow for applying third-degree price discrimination (e.g., applying different prices for pasta depending on the age), this would not be fully recommended given that may generate rejection among consumers because it is not a common practice in foodstuff price discrimination. Hence, second price discrimination would be a feasible option [86]. Each of the identified classes is also defined by environmental attitudes and the main attributes that consumers valued when purchasing sustainable foodstuffs. By using such information, different packages and marketing/promotion campaigns can be applied by pasta producers trying to capture the maximum consumer surplus. Thus, the most expensive sustainable pasta package would be directed to those individuals in class 2, that is young- and middle-aged couples, really concerned about environment and who actually develop actions to address environmental concerns. They do not need great packaging, but the standard 500 g package needs to communicate a great amount of information regarding the sustainability of the pasta. They need to be aware that the pasta they are purchasing is sustainable enough. For that, they would be willing to pay 1.23 €/kg. Secondly, and similarly, class 1 individuals would claim if standard sustainable pasta packages (500 g) were present in the supermarket, but with clear indications on product quality, paying particular attention to the sustainability declaration for environmental feelings. As such, they would be willing to pay 1.00 €/kg more than for the conventional pasta. Finally, class 3 and 4 would be encompassed by the same proposal. Such classes mostly include families with an average household size of four members and great consumption of pasta and bread, so requiring greater packages (500–1000 g). For such group of consumers, quality becomes the main characteristic they expect from sustainable pasta, so information about it is expected in the package in order to be able to capture most of their consumer surplus. As such, they would be willing to pay about 0.35–0.45 €/kg more for sustainable pasta than for conventional.
Extracting the “premium price” recognized by a larger share of consumers for the effort generated in producing more sustainably will require more investments in specific communication strategies by producers and retailers. The provision of information regarding the sustainability attributes allow for reducing the information asymmetries commonly presented in the agri-food value chain [87]. The effectiveness in the adoption of sustainable labels for producers in their commitment to increasing their competitiveness requires proper information policies for consumers and potential buyers, as evinced in [13]. Indeed, information efforts for transferring sustainability commitments from producers to consumers may also serve for building trust among consumers [88]. From the point of view of the market, there is a need to effectively communicate to the consumer the value of public goods that are contained within private goods. This objective can be achieved by acting with awareness campaigns aimed at transferring the value of sustainability and greater commitment needed to achieve it. Awareness-raising concerning environmental issues, as it emerges, from the analyses seems to have already begun in the younger generations. It would allow, over time, bringing a change in the way of understanding these issues for an increased number of consumers. As such, the institutional context may significantly influence the valuation outcome by the provision of credible and trustful information, thereby reducing the uncertainty in the environmental expected outcomes [70].
From a political point of view, we consider these processes to take time, while the transition of production systems towards sustainability has already begun. In this perspective, besides investing in raising awareness of the environment in society, it is necessary to develop political tools and strategies that can support the players in the supply chain in the process of change. Agricultural producers can, in this perspective, often radically change their production systems. It should be added that in Europe, policies such as the CAP have already been acting in this direction for years and the commitment to sustainability is at the heart of the latest reform.

5. Conclusions

An important consideration in the transition from supply chains to sustainability is the perception of the value that consumers ascribe to eco-friendly agri-food products. A potential added value recognition for these products is crucial to compensate for the efforts of the actors involved in the change. To enable this transfer of value, it is necessary, from a marketing perspective, to know the various types of consumers and their willingness to pay. Furthermore, from a policy perspective, it is critical to understand if consumers value the attribute of environmental sustainability. This allows policy makers to develop policy tools to support the transition of supply chains and respond to societal demands.
The present work aimed to expand the knowledge concerning consumers’ willingness to pay for mass-market products with sustainability attributes, achieved through more sustainable agricultural practices’ adoption, such as crop diversification. Key findings provided valuable empirical evidence on the process of recognizing the value of sustainability of a product, such as dry semolina pasta, and which drivers influence consumers’ willingness to pay. The analysis showed that, in the samples, some consumer groups have a greater propensity to spend more than others. Socio-demographic characteristics and purchasing habits play an important role in increasing the recognized value of sustainable pasta. Furthermore, environmental attitudes and the relationship with agricultural systems also influence the value of WTP.
Although with the stated preference methods, it is possible to run into an underestimation, or overestimation, of WTP values and the study is not representative of the Italian population, this work offers a first approach, both from a market and a political point of view, on how this potential greater WTP can be recognized and redistributed among agri-food chain actors. Considering these limits and the growing diffusion of sustainable mass-market products on the market, further research would be desirable to ensure a more consistent understanding of the processes that guide consumers in recognizing a greater WTP and how these processes have changed over the last few years, due to the greater diffusion of this type of product.

Author Contributions

E.S.R.: conceptualization; methodology; formal analysis; investigation; data curation; writing (original draft preparation); visualization. J.A.Z.: conceptualization, methodology; formal analysis; writing (review and editing). F.C.: conceptualization, formal analysis; writing (review and editing),validation; funding acquisition. E.B.: conceptualization; writing (original draft preparation); investigation; project administration; funding acquisition; supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by European Commission Horizon 2020 project Diverfarming [grant agreement 728003].

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. An exemption was given by the Institutional Ethics Committee at the corresponding author’s institution. The data were analyzed anonymously.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Acknowledgments

Jose A. Zabala acknowledges the support from the AgriCambio project (Grant PID2020-114576RB-I00 funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cecchini, L.; Torquati, B.; Chiorri, M. Sustainable agri-food products: A review of consumer preference studies through experimental economics. Agric. Econ. 2018, 64, 554–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Nash, H.A. The European Commission’s sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy action plan. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 496–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vanhonacker, F.; Van Loo, E.J.; Gellynck, X.; Verbeke, W. Flemish consumer attitudes towards more sustainable food choices. Appetite 2013, 62, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Palmieri, N.; Stefanoni, W.; Latterini, F.; Pari, L. An Italian explorative study of willingness to pay for a new functional pasta featuring opuntia ficus indica. Agriculture 2021, 11, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Raimondo, M.; Caracciolo, F.; Cembalo, L.; Chinnici, G.; Pappalardo, G.; D’Amico, M. Moving towards circular bioeconomy: Managing olive cake supply chain through contracts. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 28, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Recchia, L.; Cappelli, A.; Cini, E.; Garbati Pegna, F.; Boncinelli, P. Environmental Sustainability of Pasta Production Chains: An Integrated Approach for Comparing Local and Global Chains. Resources 2019, 8, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Chkanikova, O.; Lehner, M. Private eco-brands and green market development: Towards new forms of sustainability governance in the food retailing. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 107, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fouilleux, E. Sustainable Voluntary Standards: Towards Privatized Regulation in the Food and Farm Sector? In Development, the Environment, and Food: Towards Agricultural Change? Jacquet, P., Pachauri, R., Tubiana, L., Eds.; A Planet for Life Series; TERI Press: New Dehli, India, 2012; pp. 215–225. [Google Scholar]
  9. Govindan, K. Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: A conceptual framework. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 419–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bravi, M.; D’Urso, A.; Gallo, R.; Piazza, L. Sustainable innovation management in the food industry. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 87, 379–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pancino, B.; Blasi, E.; Rappoldt, A.; Pascucci, S.; Ruini, L.; Ronchi, C. Partnering for sustainability in agri-food supply chains: The case of Barilla Sustainable Farming in the Po Valley. Agric. Food Econ. 2019, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Abeliotis, K.; Koniari, C.; Sardianou, E. The profile of the green consumer in Greece. Int. J. Cons. Stud. 2010, 34, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aprile, M.C.; Punzo, G. How environmental sustainability labels affect food choices: Assessing consumer preferences in southern Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 332, 130046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kemp, K.; Insch, A.; Holdsworth, D.K.; Knight, J.G. Food miles: Do UK consumers actually care? Food Policy 2010, 35, 504–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Prothero, A.; McDonagh, P.; Dobscha, S. Is Green the New Black? Reflections on a Green Commodity Discourse. J. Macromark. 2010, 30, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer ‘‘attitude-behavioral intention’’ gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 169–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tait, P.; Saunders, C.; Guenther, M.; Rutherford, P.; Miller, S. Exploring the impacts of food label format on consumer willingness to pay for environmental sustainability: A choice experiment approach in the United Kingdom and Japan. Int. Food Res. J. 2016, 23, 1787–1796. [Google Scholar]
  18. Van Loo, E.J.; Caputo, V.; Nayga Jr, R.M.; Seo, H.S.; Zhang, B.; Verbeke, W. Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 118, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Borrello, M.; Cecchini, L.; Vecchio, R.; Caracciolo, F.; Cembalo, L.; Torquati, B. Agricultural landscape certification as a market-driven tool to reward the provisioning of cultural ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 2022, 193, 107286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Grunert, K.G.; Hieke, S.; Wills, J. Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 2014, 44, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Danner, H.; Hagerer, G.; Pan, Y.; Groh, G. The news media and its audience: Agenda setting on organic food in the United States and Germany. J.Clean.Prod. 2022, 354, 131503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Panico, T.; Del Giudice, T.; Caracciolo, F. Quality dimensions and consumer preferences: A choice experiment in the Italian extra-virgin olive oil market. Agric. Econ. Rev. 2014, 15, 100–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Seo, S.; Ahn, H.-K.; Jeong, J.; Moon, J. Consumers’ attitude toward sustainable food products: Ingredients vs. packaging. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Di Vita, G.; Caracciolo, F.; Brun, F.; D’Amico, M. Picking out a wine: Consumer motivation behind different quality wines choice. Wine Econ. Policy 2019, 8, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schäufele, I.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ perceptions, preferences and willingness-to-pay for wine with sustainability characteristics: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 147, 379–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sellers-Rubio, R.; Nicolau-Gonzalbez, J.L. Estimating the willingness to pay for a sustainable wine using a Heckit model. J. Wine Econ. 2016, 5, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rosa-Schleich, J.; Loos, J.; Mußhoff, O.; Tscharntke, T. Ecological-economic trade-offs of Diversified Farming Systems—A review. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 160, 251–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Alcon, F.; Marín-Miñano, C.; Zabala, J.A.; de-Miguel, M.D.; Martínez-Paz, J.M. Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 171, 106593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Latvala, T.; Regina, K.; Lehtonen, H. Evaluating Non-Market Values of Agroecological and Socio-Cultural Benefits of Diversified Cropping Systems. Environ. Manag. 2021, 67, 988–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Defrancesco, E.; Perito, M.A.; Bozzolan, I.; Cei, L.; Stefani, G. Testing Consumers’ Preferences for Environmental Attributes of Pasta. Insights from an ABR Approach. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Lemken, D.; Knigge, M.; Meyerding, S.; Spiller, A. The Value of Environmental and Health Claims on New Legume Products: A Non-Hypothetical Online Auction. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Sogari, G.; Li, J.; Lefebvre, M.; Menozzi, D.; Pellegrini, N.; Cirelli, M.; Gómez, M.I.; Mora, C. The Influence of Health Messages in Nudging Consumption of Whole Grain Pasta. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Carillo, F.; Caracciolo, F.; Cembalo, L. Do durum wheat producers benefit of vertical coordination? Agric. Food Econ. 2017, 5, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Cacchiarelli, L.; Lass, D.; Sorrentino, A. CAP Reform and Price Transmission in the Italian Pasta Chain. Agribus 2016, 32, 482–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cacchiarelli, L.; Sorrentino, A. Market power in food supply chain: Evidence from Italian pasta chain. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2129–2141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Frascarelli, A.; Ciliberti, S.; de Oliveira, G.M.; Chiodini, G.; Martino, G. Production contracts and food quality: A transaction cost analysis for the Italian durum wheat sector. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ciliberti, S.; Stanco, M.; Frascarelli, A.; Marotta, G.; Martino, G.; Nazzaro, C. Sustainability Strategies and Contractual Arrangements in the Italian Pasta Supply Chain: An Analysis under the Neo Institutional Economics Lens. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. ISMEA. La Catena Del Valore Della Pasta e Del Pane. Piano di Settore Cerealicolo, Ottobre 2019. Available online: https://www.ismeamercati.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/3113 (accessed on 2 August 2021).
  39. Bani, L.; Massimino, D.; Orioli, V.; Bottoni, L.; Massa, R. Assessment of population trends of common breeding birds in Lombardia, Northern Italy, 1992–2007. Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2009, 21, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fava, L.; Orrù, M.A.; Scardala, S.; Alonzo, E.; Fardella, M.; Strumia, C.; Martinelli, A.; Finocchiaro, S.; Previtera, M.; Franchi, A.; et al. Pesticides and their metabolites in selected Italian groundwater and surface water used for drinking. Ann. Dell’istituto Super. Sanità 2010, 46, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Perego, A.; Basile, A.; Bonfante, A.; De Mascellis, R.; Terribile, F.; Brenna, S.; Acutis, M. Nitrate leaching under maize cropping systems in Po Valley (Italy). Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 147, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Agroecology and the Search for a Truly Sustainable Agriculture; Basic Textbooks for Environmental Training; United Nations Environment Programme Environmental Training Network for Latin America and the Caribbean: Mexico City, Mexico, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  43. Blasi, E.; Ruini, L.; Monotti, C. Technologies and new business models to increase sustainability in agro-food value chain: Promote quality and reduce environmental footprint in durum wheat cultivation processes. Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 2017, 28, 52–55. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pretty, J.; Bharucha, Z.P. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann. Bot. 2014, 114, 1571–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Tellarini, V.; Caporali, F. An input/output methodology to evaluate farms as sustainable agroecosystems: An application of indicators to farms in central Italy. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 77, 111–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. ISTAT. Coltivazioni: Superfici e Produzione—Dati in Complesso—Prov, Microdati ad Uso Pubblico. 2021. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/agricoltura?dati (accessed on 2 August 2021). (In Italian).
  47. ISMEA; Rete Rurale Nazionale(RRN). La Competitività Della Filiera del Frumento Duro. Dicembre 2018. Available online: https://www.ismea.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/10675 (accessed on 2 August 2021).
  48. European Commission. Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the Document Proposals for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing Rules on Support for Strategic Plans to be Drawn up by Member States under the Common Agricultural Policy. 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0301&rid=2. (accessed on 1 March 2021).
  49. European Commission. The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 Final. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf. (accessed on 1 March 2021).
  50. Zabala, J.A.; Albaladejo-García, J.A.; Navarro, N.; Martínez-Paz, J.M.; Alcon, F. Integration of preference heterogeneity into sustainable nature conservation: From practice to policy. J. Nat. Conserv. 2022, 65, 126095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bateman, I.J.; Carson, R.T.; Day, B.; Hanemann, M.; Hanley, N.; Hett, T.; Jones-Lee, M.; Loomes, G.; Mourato, S.; Özdemiroglu, E.; et al. Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  52. Carson, R.T. Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2000, 34, 1413–1418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D. Design and Analysis of Simulated Choice or Allocation Experiments in Travel Choice Modeling. Transportation Research Record: Washington, DC, USA, 1982; pp. 11–17. [Google Scholar]
  54. Boxall, P.C.; Adamowicz, W.L.; Swait, J.; Williams, M.; Louviere, J. A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation. Ecol. Econ. 1996, 18, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mitchell, R.C.; Carson, R.T. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method, 1st ed.; Resources for the Future; RFF Press: New York, NY, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cummings, R.G.; Taylor, L.O. Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: A cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. Am. Econ. Rev. 1999, 89, 649–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Haghani, M.; Bliemer, M.C.; Rose, J.M.; Oppewal, H.; Lancsar, E. Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods. J. Choice Model. 2021, 41, 100322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Murphy, J.J.; Allen, P.G.; Stevens, T.H.; Weatherhead, D. A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2005, 30, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Cruz, S.M.; Manata, B. Measurement of environmental concern: A review and analysis. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Maloney, M.P.; Ward, M.P.; Braucht, G.N. A revised scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and knowledge. Am. Psychol. 1975, 30, 787–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Tobin, J. Estimation of relationships for limited dependent-variables. Econom. J. Econom. Soc. 1958, 26, 24–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. McDonald, J.F.; Moffitt, R.A. The uses of Tobit analysis. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1980, 62, 318–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Alemu, G.T.; Tsunekawa, A.; Haregeweyn, N.; Nigussle, Z.; Tsubo, M.; Elias, A.; Ayalew, Z.; Berihun, D.; Adgo, E.; Meshesha, D.T.; et al. Smallholder farmers’ willingness to pay for sustainable land management practices in the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 5640–5665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Vermunt, J.; Magidson, J. Latent Class Cluster Analysis. In Applied Latent Class Analysis; Hagenaars, J., McCutcheon, A., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 89–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. ISTAT. Indagine Sulle Spese Delle Famiglie: Microdati ad Uso Pubblico. 2018. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/180356 (accessed on 1 March 2019).
  66. Ma, X.; Liu, Z.; Meng, T.; Florkowski, W.J.; Mu, Y. Impact of Food Sustainability Labels on the Price of Rice in Online Sales. Food 2022, 11, 3781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Osawe, O.W.; Grilli, G.; Curtis, J. Examining food preferences in the face of environmental pressures. J. Agric. Res. 2023, 11, 100476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Staples, A.J.; Reeling, C.J.; Widmar, N.J.O.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer willingness to pay for sustainability attributes in beer: A choice experiment using eco-labels. Agribusiness 2020, 36, 591–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, Y.; Chung, T.; Lai, P. Go Sustainability—Willingness to Pay for Eco–Agricultural Innovation: Understanding Chinese Traditional Cultural Values and Label Trust Using a VAB Hierarchy Model. Sustainability 2023, 15, 751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Arnoldussen, F.; Koetse, M.J.; de Bruyn, S.M.; Kuik, O. What Are People Willing to Pay for Social Sustainability? A Choice Experiment among Dutch Consumers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. De Valck, J.; Rolfe, J.; Rajapaksa, D.; Star, M. Consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for improved environmental standards: Insights from cane sugar in the Great Barrier Reef region. Aust. J. Agric. Econ. 2022, 66, 505–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Forleo, M.B.; Romagnoli, L.; Palmieri, N. Are Italian consumers of canned tuna fish sensitive to environmentally sustainable product attributes? Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 608–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. De Bauw, M.; Franssens, S.; Vranken, L. Trading off environmental attributes in food consumption choices. Food Policy 2022, 112, 102338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Netuveli, G.; Watts, P. Pro-environmental behaviours and attitudes are associated with health, wellbeing and life satisfaction in multiple occupancy households in the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Popul. Environ. 2020, 41, 347–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Choi, A.S.; Fielding, K.S. Environmental attitudes as WTP predictors: A case study involving endangered species. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 89, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cooper, P.; Poe, G.L.; Bateman, I.J. The structure of motivation for contingent values: A case study of lake water quality improvement. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 50, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Glenk, K.; Colombo, S. How Sure Can You Be? A Framework for Considering Delivery Uncertainty in Benefit Assessments Based on Stated Preference Methods. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 62, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Perni, A.; Barreiro-Hurlé, J.; Martínez-Paz, J.M. When policy implementation failures affect public preferences for environmental goods: Implications for economic analysis in the European water policy. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 169, 106523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rossi, C.; Rivetti, F. Young consumers’ purchase behaviour of sustainably-labelled food products. What is the role of scepticism? Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 105, 104772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Diverfarming Consortium. Farm Level Economic Benefits, Costs and Improved Sustainability of Diversified Cropping Systems. Deliverable D8.3. Diverfarming Project and Consortium. 2020. Available online: https://www.diverfarming.eu (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  81. Martin-Gorriz, B.; Zabala, J.A.; Sánchez-Navarro, V.; Gallego-Elvira, B.; Martínez-García, V.; Alcon, F.; Maestre-Valero, J.F. Intercropping Practices in Mediterranean Mandarin Orchards from an Environmental and Economic Perspective. Agriculture 2022, 12, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Messéan, A.; Viguier, L.; Paresys, L.; Aubertot, J.; Canali, S.; Iannetta, P.; Justes, E.; Karley, A.; Keillor, B.; Kemper, L.; et al. Enabling crop diversification to support transitions toward more sustainable European agrifood systems. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2021, 8, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Weituschat, C.S.; Pascucci, S.; Materia VCTamas, P.; de Jong, R.; Trienekens, J. Goal frames and sustainability transitions: How cognitive lock-ins can impede crop diversification. Sustain. Sci. 2022, 17, 2203–2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Diverfarming Consortium. Report on Value Chain Level Economic Gains, Reduced Risks and Improved Sustainability. Deliverable D8.4. Diverfarming Project and Consortium. 2022. Available online: https://www.diverfarming.eu (accessed on 31 January 2023).
  85. Cohen, M.C.; Jacquillat, A.; Song, H. Price discrimination and inventory allocation Bertrand competition. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2022, 25, 148–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Khan, R.J.; Jain, D.C. An Empirical Analysis of Price Discrimination Mechanisms and Retailer Profitability. J. Mark. 2005, 42, 516–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Richartz, C.; Abdulai, A. The role of information in consumer preferences for sustainable certified palm oil products in Germany. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0271198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jørgensen, S.; Pedersen, L.J.T.; Skard, S. How going green builds trusting beliefs. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 00585 g001 550
Figure 1. Case study area. (a) EU Region (NUTS2) Emilia-romagna region. (b) IT Province (NUTS3). From the left, Parma, Reggio Emilia and Modena provinces. (c) Pianura Padana Context. From the left Parma, Reggio Emilia and Modena cities.
Figure 1. Case study area. (a) EU Region (NUTS2) Emilia-romagna region. (b) IT Province (NUTS3). From the left, Parma, Reggio Emilia and Modena provinces. (c) Pianura Padana Context. From the left Parma, Reggio Emilia and Modena cities.
Agriculture 13 00585 g001
Agriculture 13 00585 g002 550
Figure 2. Flowchart. Process followed in the research framework.
Figure 2. Flowchart. Process followed in the research framework.
Agriculture 13 00585 g002
Agriculture 13 00585 g003 550
Figure 3. Drivers influencing the demand for sustainable foodstuffs.
Figure 3. Drivers influencing the demand for sustainable foodstuffs.
Agriculture 13 00585 g003
Table
Table 1. Environmental Commitment Index (ECI) items.
Table 1. Environmental Commitment Index (ECI) items.
ECIItem
ECI-AI feel irritated when I think of the pollution and its damage to plants and animals
I would like sustainable agriculture to be promoted
ECI-VI would like to stop buying products from companies that pollute the environment even if it means paying more for the products
I would like to be involved in voluntary environmental education activities
ECI-RI always choose certified sustainable, ecological, or organic products
I collaborate with environmental organizations (voluntary, donations, etc.)
Table
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.
Table 2. Descriptive Statistics.
VariableSamplePo Valley 1
Socio-demographic
Gender (% women)50.8151.18
Age (years)47.4638.75
Household size (people)2.872.40
Educational level (%)
Lower level21.0843.93
Medium Level49.1925.46
Higher level29.7316.68
Residence location (%)
City center32.97
Residential district 55.68
Urban-peripheral4.86
Rural area6.49
Purchase habits
Fruits/Vegetables (% expense)83.38
Pasta/Bread (% expense)24.32
Meat/Eggs/Fish (% expense)42.16
Legumes (% expense)11.89
Milk and derivates (% expense)39.46
Relationship with agriculture
Fields propriety (%)55.68
Sustainable agricultural practices awareness (%)81.60
Visit agroecosystems (%)41.60
Attitudinal
ECI-Affective (mean)4.84
ECI-Verbal (mean)3.40
ECI-Real (mean)2.02
1 ISTAT, 2018.
Table
Table 3. WTP function. Results from the Tobit models.
Table 3. WTP function. Results from the Tobit models.
Model 1Model 2
Coef.Std. Err. Coef.Std. Err. Marginal EffectsStd. Err.
Constant6.431.00***6.230.76***
Socio-demographic
Gender−0.570.32*
Age−0.020.01*−0.020.01**−0.020.01
Household size−0.360.15**−0.450.14***−0.420.13
Education 1
Medium level−0.210.48
Higher level−0.060.36
Residence location 2
Residential district −0.490.38
Urban-peripheral0.490.78
Rural area0.190.69
Purchase habits
Pasta/Bread−0.700.36**−0.670.36*−0.630.34
Relationship with agriculture
Fields propriety0.360.33
Sustainable agri. practices awareness−0.330.42
Visit agroecosystems0.070.35
Attitudinal
ECI-Affective2.630.71***2.790.68***2.620.63
ECI-Verbal0.931.12
ECI-Real−1.440.44***−1.430.38***−1.350.35
Number of observations185 185
Uncensored181 181
Log-likelihood−390.80 −395.79
AIC 815.61 805.58
BIC 870.36 828.12
Statistically significant at a level of * 0.1, ** 0.05 or *** 0.01. 1 Reference level: Lower level. 2 Reference level: City center.
Table
Table 4. Drivers of WTP. LCC analysis and within-class WTP functions (Tobit models).
Table 4. Drivers of WTP. LCC analysis and within-class WTP functions (Tobit models).
Class 1
The Older		Class 2
The Young Couples		Class 3
The Families		Class 4
The Younger
Coef.Std. Err. Coef.Std. Err. Coef.Std. Err. Coef.Std. Err.
Cluster of socio-demographic characteristics and purchase habits
Mean
Age68.721.05***33.611.53***48.021.41***24.111.38***
Household size1.920.10***1.880.19***3.860.19***4.120.16***
Pasta/Bread0.180.06***0.270.09***0.320.07***0.240.08***
Class allocation
Constant −0.630.25***−0.340.25***−0.490.23***
Prob. (%)35.040.04 18.680.04 24.860.04 21.420.04
Within-class WTP functions
Constant3.310.34***4.390.53***3.320.17***2.990.17***
ECI-Affective4.261.25***12.404.43***1.100.86 0.410.62
ECI-Real−2.680.80***−4.451.25***0.160.41 0.300.37
Number of observations67 34 45 39
Uncensored65 32 45 39
Log-likelihood−152.51 −79.97 −68.61 −52.58
AIC313.03 167.94 145.22 113.15
BIC321.85 174.05 152.45 119.80
Statistically significant at a level of *** 0.01.
Table
Table 5. The economic value of sustainable produced pasta according to classes.
Table 5. The economic value of sustainable produced pasta according to classes.
SampleClass 1Class 2Class 3Class 4ANOVA
(p-Value)
Cluster of socio-demographic characteristics and purchase habits
Mean WTP (€/household/month) 13.653.76ab4.52a3.36b3.01b0.03
Mean WTP (€/kg) 20.651.001.230.440.37
1 Different letter shows significant differences among classes at 90%. 2 Italians eat a monthly average of 1.92 kg of pasta (Unione Italiana Food, 2021).
Table
Table 6. Relative importance. Main attributes of sustainable pasta according to classes.
Table 6. Relative importance. Main attributes of sustainable pasta according to classes.
SampleClass 1Class 2Class 3Class 4ANOVA
(p-Value)
Cluster of socio-demographic characteristics and purchase habits
Price (%) 226.4937.31a17.65b15.56b28.21ab0.04
Quality (%) 255.1456.72ab38.24a75.56b43.59a0.00
Information (%) 236.7620.90a64.71b37.78a38.46a0.00
Note: Columns sum more than 100% given that more than two attributes could be chosen. 2 Different letter shows significant differences among classes at 90%.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rossi, E.S.; Zabala, J.A.; Caracciolo, F.; Blasi, E. The Value of Crop Diversification: Understanding the Factors Influencing Consumers’ WTP for Pasta from Sustainable Agriculture. Agriculture 2023, 13, 585. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030585

AMA Style

Rossi ES, Zabala JA, Caracciolo F, Blasi E. The Value of Crop Diversification: Understanding the Factors Influencing Consumers’ WTP for Pasta from Sustainable Agriculture. Agriculture. 2023; 13(3):585. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030585

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rossi, Eleonora Sofia, José A. Zabala, Francesco Caracciolo, and Emanuele Blasi. 2023. "The Value of Crop Diversification: Understanding the Factors Influencing Consumers’ WTP for Pasta from Sustainable Agriculture" Agriculture 13, no. 3: 585. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030585

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop