Would consumers help achieve sustainable development in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau with a forage–livestock balance certification label?

Abstract

PurposeThe contradiction and conflict between grassland conservation and economic development are prominent in the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau (QTP) with its fragile environment and ecosystem. How to promote sustainable grazing in the plateau without hurting the economic welfare of local residents is a key challenge facing the Chinese government. This study explores the potential of market-based grassland conservation policies by evaluating consumer preferences and valuations for forage–livestock balance certification labeled yak products.Design/methodology/approachThis study adopts a choice experiment with four attributes of yak meat, including forage–livestock balance certification, feeding type, age at slaughter and price. A sample size of 2,999 respondents from Beijing, Shanghai, Wuhan, Guangzhou and Chengdu was collected by a professional online survey company.FindingsThe result reveals that urban Chinese consumers are willing to pay highest price premiums for forage–livestock balance certified yak meat, followed by grass-fed claim labeled meat. Consumers on average place negative valuations for grain-fed claims, meat from yak slaughtered above 2 and 4 years old. Heterogeneous analysis indicates that individuals who are female, younger, married, and better educated, and with above median income, Tibet travel or yak consumption experience, are more receptive to the forage–livestock balance certification.Originality/valueIt is the first study to explore demand-driven mechanisms for grassland conservation by focusing on consumer valuation for the forage–livestock balance certification.

Would Altruistic Consumers Place A Higher Value on Sustainable Foods?

“…While previous studies have predominantly focused on the adoption behavior of green technologies by the supply side [4][5][6], such as food producers, plants, and retailers, there is a growing body of literature that explores the feasibility of promoting sustainable labels among consumers. These studies assess consumer preferences and valuations of different sustainable food products, examining individuals' willingness to pay for various green labels, including organic and Fairtrade labels [7][8][9][10][11][12][13], animal welfare claims [14][15][16], carbon footprint labels [17][18][19][20], and the forage-livestock balance label [21], among others. While several studies have examined individual sustainable labels or compared a limited number of labels [22,23], there is a dearth of research that combines multiple sustainable labels within a single context and evaluates consumers' willingness to pay for each label.…”