Epsilon Archive for Student Projects

Abstract

Recovered nutrients from human urine have emerged as one potential alternative to imported synthetic fertilisers, but how consumers respond to food produced with this kind of fertiliser is not well understood. Earlier work in slightly different contexts, such as crops irrigated with recycled water, indicates that consumer responses depend heavily on how the production process is communicated. Whether different types of communication actually work in the same way, and whether changes in how consumers perceive the product translate into changes in willingness to pay (WTP), has received less attention. This study investigated how four different information framings affect Swedish consumers’ perceptions of, and their WTP for an oat drink produced using human urine-derived fertiliser. A between-subjects experimental design was used, with 793 respondents randomly assigned to one of four treatments: non-disclosed origin, disclosed origin, disclosed origin with environmental benefits framing, and disclosed origin with a historical context framing. WTP was elicited through a Multiple Price List (MPL) combined with an incentive-compatible lottery mechanism. The findings indicate that disclosing the urine origin has only a limited effect on WTP, although it clearly triggers negative affective reactions. The two extended framings, however, did not influence consumer responses in the same way. The framing focused on environmental benefits raised both environmental perceptions and WTP, while the framing aimed at historically normalising the production method reduced the negative emotional responses without changing the actual payment decision. Reducing affective resistance alone does not seem to be enough to raise WTP.