Marketing Green Fertilizers: Insights into Consumer Preferences

In an effort to support the long-term viability of the bioenergy industry through an end market for digestate, we investigated purchasing preferences for fertilizer product features in the home gardening market. We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE), presenting 504 respondents with a total of 6048 product attribute choices in a simulated context that replicated the tradeoff decisions made in the real marketplace. We analyzed the choice data using a hierarchical Bayes estimate to generate part-worth utilities for fertilizer product attributes. We then conducted a latent class analysis to identify market segments that could be expected to respond to differentiated product design strategies. We were able to quantify both purchasing preferences for fertilizer product attributes as well as the importance of each attribute to the perceived utility of a product. We were further able to identify five distinct market segments that make clear the potential for differentiated strategies in the home gardening market. We found both negative and positive price sensitivities, with sociodemographically distinct subgroups that favored low-, mid-, and high-priced products. We also found purchasing preferences for brand status, product labeling and nutrient values. Our results provide insights that should help product managers in the biogas industry develop marketing strategies to integrate digestate into a sustainable energy production system.

[1]  S. Passel,et al.  Farmers’ perceived cost of land use restrictions: A simulated purchasing decision using discrete choice experiments , 2015 .

[2]  M. R. Cameira,et al.  Water and nitrogen budgets under different production systems in Lisbon urban farming , 2014 .

[3]  M. Nelles,et al.  Biogas digestate marketing: Qualitative insights into the supply side , 2015 .

[4]  S. Meyerding.  Consumer preferences for food labels on tomatoes in Germany – A comparison of a quasi-experiment and two stated preference approaches , 2016, Appetite.

[5]  Cecilia Lundberg.  Eutrophication, risk management and sustainability. The perceptions of different stakeholders in the northern Baltic Sea. , 2013, Marine pollution bulletin.

[6]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  Preference endogeneity in discrete choice models , 2014 .

[7]  D. McFadden.  The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .

[8]  Chunbo Ma,et al.  Warm glow from green power: Evidence from Australian electricity consumers , 2016 .

[9]  D. Mccloskey,et al.  The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives , 2008 .

[10]  John R. Taylor,et al.  Urban home gardens in the Global North: A mixed methods study of ethnic and migrant home gardens in Chicago, IL , 2014, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.

[11]  Matthias Zessner,et al.  Overview and description of technologies for recovering phosphorus from municipal wastewater , 2015 .

[12]  W Fuchs,et al.  Assessment of the state of the art of technologies for the processing of digestate residue from anaerobic digesters. , 2013, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[13]  Andrea E. Ulrich,et al.  Lake Winnipeg Basin: Advocacy, challenges and progress for sustainable phosphorus and eutrophication control. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[14]  David Hoyos,et al.  The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments , 2010 .

[15]  Rachelle Lombardi,et al.  The future distribution and production of global phosphate rock reserves , 2011 .

[16]  Christian Friege,et al.  Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity , 2015 .

[17]  Saveyn Hans,et al.  End-of-waste criteria for biodegradable waste subjected to biological treatment (compost & digestate): Technical proposals , 2013 .

[18]  C. Dawson,et al.  Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: Production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus , 2011 .

[19]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Economic valuation of product features , 2014 .

[20]  Fiona L. Gibson,et al.  Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits , 2016 .

[21]  Kristian Steensen Nielsen,et al.  A better carbon footprint label , 2016 .

[22]  M. Höök,et al.  Phosphate rock production and depletion : Regional disaggregated modeling and global implications , 2014 .

[23]  Elina Tampio,et al.  Liquid fertilizer products from anaerobic digestion of food waste: mass, nutrient and energy balance of four digestate liquid treatment systems , 2016 .

[24]  Deirdre N. McCloskey,et al.  The Standard Error of Regressions , 1996 .

[25]  M. Guida,et al.  Compost from organic solid waste: Quality assessment and European regulations for its sustainable use , 2015 .

[26]  David A. C. Manning,et al.  Historical and technical developments of potassium resources. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[27]  R. Barberán,et al.  Economic valuation of domestic water uses. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[28]  Francisco X. Aguilar,et al.  Consumer stated purchasing preferences and corporate social responsibility in the wood products industry: A conjoint analysis in the U.S. and China , 2013 .

[29]  Liangcheng Yang,et al.  Beyond land application: Emerging technologies for the treatment and reuse of anaerobically digested agricultural and food waste. , 2015, Waste management.

[30]  Stephane Hess,et al.  Incorporating environmental attitudes in discrete choice models: an exploration of the utility of the awareness of consequences scale. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[31]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[32]  Gerald Steiner,et al.  Efficiency performance of the world's leading corporations in phosphate rock mining , 2015 .

[33]  Dan Pan,et al.  Farmers' preferences for livestock pollution control policy in China: a choice experiment method , 2016 .

[34]  D. Manning.  Mineral sources of potassium for plant nutrition. A review , 2010, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[35]  Daniel Vecchiato,et al.  Public preferences for electricity contracts including renewable energy: A marketing analysis with choice experiments , 2015 .

[36]  A. Carrico,et al.  Green With Envy , 2013 .

[37]  M. Mew.  Phosphate rock costs, prices and resources interaction. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[38]  I Vázquez-Rowe,et al.  Assessing the treatment costs and the fertilizing value of the output products in digestate treatment systems. , 2014, Water science and technology : a journal of the International Association on Water Pollution Research.

[39]  K. Möller.  Effects of anaerobic digestion on soil carbon and nitrogen turnover, N emissions, and soil biological activity. A review , 2015, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[40]  L. Theuvsen,et al.  Potential analysis of the biogas production – as measured by effects of added value and employment , 2016 .

[41]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[42]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Designing a stated choice experiment: The value of a qualitative process , 2012 .

[43]  Florian Heiss,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[44]  Treavor H. Boyer,et al.  A Review of Turfgrass Fertilizer Management Practices: Implications for Urban Water Quality , 2012 .

[45]  S. Livesley,et al.  Soil-atmosphere exchange of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide in urban garden systems: impact of irrigation, fertiliser and mulch , 2010, Urban Ecosystems.

[46]  Erik L. Olson.  The rationalization and persistence of organic food beliefs in the face of contrary evidence , 2017 .

[47]  L. Thurstone.  A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[48]  Julia Valeiras-Jurado,et al.  A multimodal approach to product presentations , 2014 .

[49]  B. Skiera,et al.  Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase , 2002 .

[50]  Caroline M. Saunders,et al.  Emerging versus developed economy consumer willingness to pay for environmentally sustainable food production: a choice experiment approach comparing Indian, Chinese and United Kingdom lamb consumers , 2016 .

[51]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Applied Conjoint Analysis , 2014 .

[52]  O. Musshoff,et al.  Sugar beet as a biogas substrate? A discrete choice experiment for the design of substrate supply contracts for German farmers , 2016 .

[53]  Minjeong Kim,et al.  The effects of online product presentation on consumer responses: A mental imagery perspective , 2014 .

[54]  R. Scholz,et al.  The Right to Know the Geopotential of Minerals for Ensuring Food Supply Security: The Case of Phosphorus , 2015 .

[55]  D. Schmuck,et al.  Consumers' green involvement and the persuasive effects of emotional versus functional ads , 2014 .

[56]  Stephen T. Ziliak,et al.  Size Matters: The Standard Error of Regressions in the American Economic Review , 2004 .

[57]  Christian Schlereth,et al.  Two New Features in Discrete Choice Experiments to Improve Willingness-to-Pay Estimation That Result in SDR and SADR: Separated (Adaptive) Dual Response , 2017, Manag. Sci..

[58]  Daniel Pichert,et al.  Green defaults : Information presentation and pro-environmental behaviour , 2008 .

[59]  Annemie Elsen,et al.  Garden management and soil fertility in Flemish domestic gardens , 2013 .

[60]  U. Hamm,et al.  Governmental and private certification labels for organic food: Consumer attitudes and preferences in Germany , 2014 .

[61]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Design and Analysis of Simulated Consumer Choice or Allocation Experiments: An Approach Based on Aggregate Data , 1983 .

[62]  Peter E. Rossi,et al.  Bayesian Statistics and Marketing , 2005 .

[63]  D. McFadden.  Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior , 1972 .

[64]  Ian Dodd,et al.  Harmonising conflicts between science, regulation, perception and environmental impact: the case of soil conditioners from bioenergy. , 2015, Environment international.

[65]  C. Angelo Guevara,et al.  Critical assessment of five methods to correct for endogeneity in discrete-choice models , 2015 .

[66]  Julian Sagebiel,et al.  Quality uncertainty and the market for renewable energy: Evidence from German consumers , 2016 .

[67]  Enrico Benetto,et al.  Environmental assessment of digestate treatment technologies using LCA methodology. , 2015, Waste management.

[68]  C. Lippert,et al.  Longan fruit farmers' demand for policies aimed at conserving native pollinating bees in Northern Thailand , 2016 .

[69]  S. Bröring,et al.  Life cycle assessment (LCA) of different fertilizer product types , 2015 .

[70]  J. Louviere,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis , 2010 .

[71]  B. Rocchi,et al.  Environmental friendly food. Choice experiment to assess consumer's attitude toward “climate neutral” milk: the role of communication , 2017 .

[72]  Shanyong Wang,et al.  Predicting consumers’ intention to adopt hybrid electric vehicles: using an extended version of the theory of planned behavior model , 2016 .

[73]  Monika Skowrońska,et al.  Life cycle assessment of fertilizers: a review , 2014 .

[74]  Rolf Wüstenhagen,et al.  What makes people seal the green power deal? — Customer segmentation based on choice experiment in Germany , 2014 .

[75]  S. Buysens,et al.  Utilization of derivatives from nutrient recovery processes as alternatives for fossil-based mineral fertilizers in commercial greenhouse production of Lactuca sativa L. , 2016 .

[76]  Pekka Leskinen,et al.  Combining biogas LCA reviews with stakeholder interviews to analyse life cycle impacts at a practical level , 2014 .