Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:20:33.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Consumer preferences for ‘natural’ agricultural practices: Assessing methods to manage bird pests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2015

Zachary Herrnstadt ,
Philip H. Howard ,
Chi-Ok Oh  and
Catherine A. Lindell
Zachary Herrnstadt
Affiliation:
Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.
Philip H. Howard*
Affiliation:
Department of Community Sustainability, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.
Chi-Ok Oh
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Culture, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea.
Catherine A. Lindell
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

‘Natural’ is a popular food marketing term. Although it is not well-defined, it refers primarily to inputs used for food processing, rather than agricultural practices. Given the market success of organic and non-GMO labeled foods, other agricultural practices may have the potential to develop ‘natural’ market niches while also addressing sustainability goals. We assessed perceptions of natural for one specific set of agricultural practices, bird management methods in fruit crops, utilizing a series of four focus groups. In addition, we quantified consumer preferences for these methods with a national online survey (n = 1000). The most positively received methods, falconry and nest boxes, were typically described as more natural. Conversely, the most negatively received methods, live ammunition and methyl anthranilate spray, were frequently viewed as less natural. The majority of survey respondents indicated that controlling fruit-consuming birds with natural practices was important, but an even higher percentage deemed avoiding harms to personal health as important. Because falconry and nest boxes do not have perceived direct effects on human health, they are likely to have less market potential than more established ecolabels. Communicating the use of these practices to consumers, however, may result in consumers selecting them over other products, particularly if the associated price premiums are relatively modest.

Keywords

falconrynest boxesmethyl anthranilatelive ammunitionecolabels
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , December 2016 , pp. 516 - 523
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Howard, P.H. and Allen, P. 2008. Consumer willingness to pay for domestic ‘fair trade’: Evidence from the United States. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(3):235–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Oberholtzer, L., Dimitri, C., and Jaenicke, E.C. 2013. International trade of organic food: Evidence of US imports. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28(3):255–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Natural Foods Merchandiser. 2012. NFM market overview 2012: Natural stays on perennial path to growth. Available at Web site http://newhope360.com/nfm-market-overview/nfm-market-overview-2012-natural-stays-perennial-path-growth (verified 12 November 2014).Google Scholar
4 Whole Foods Market Inc. 2014. Unacceptable ingredients for food. Available at Web site http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/quality-standards/unacceptable-ingredients-food (verified 12 November 2014).Google Scholar
5 U.S. Food and Drug Adminstration. 2015. What is the meaning of ‘natural’ on the label of food? Available at Web site http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214868.htm (verified 1 September 2015).Google Scholar
6 Lin, B-H., Smith, T.A., and Huang, C.L. 2010. Organic premiums of US fresh produce. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 23(3):208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Lindell, C.A., Schwiff, S.A., and Howard, P.H. 2012. Bird management in fruit crops: How we make progress. In R.M. Timm (ed.). Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. University of California, Davis, CA. p. 235–239.Google Scholar
8 Curtis, P.D., Merwin, I.A., Pritts, M.P., and Peterson, D.V. 1994. Chemical repellents and plastic netting for reducing bird damage to sweet cherries, blueberries, and grapes. HortScience 29(10):1151–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Tobin, M.E., Dolbeer, R.A., Webster, C.M., and Seamans, T.W. 1991. Cultivar differences in bird damage to cherries. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19(2):190–194.Google Scholar
10 Tracey, J. and Saunders, G.R. 2010. A technique to estimate bird damage in wine grapes. Crop Protection 29(5):435–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Anderson, A., Lindell, C.A., Moxcey, K.M., Siemer, W.F., Linz, G.M., Curtis, P.D., Carroll, J.E., Burrows, C.L., Boulanger, J.R., Steensma, K.M.M., and Shwiff, S.A. 2013. Bird damage to select fruit crops: The cost of damage and the benefits of control in five states. Crop Protection 52:103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Lindell, C.A., Eaton, R.A., Lizotte, E.M., and Rothwell, N.L. 2012. Bird consumption of sweet and tart cherries. Human-Wildlife Interactions 6(2):283–290.Google Scholar
13 Cook, A., Rushton, S., Allan, J., and Baxter, A. 2008. An evaluation of techniques to control problem bird species on landfill sites. Environmental Management 41(6):834–843.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Summers, R.W. 1985. The effect of scarers on the presence of starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) in cherry orchards. Crop Protection 4(4):520–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Belant, J.L. and Ickes, S.K. 1997. Mylar flags as gull deterrents. Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 359. Available at Web site http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/359 Google Scholar
16 Bomford, M. and O'Brien, P.H. 1990. Sonic deterrents in animal damage control: A review of device tests and effectiveness. Wildlife Society Bulletin 18(4):411–422.Google Scholar
17 Sergio, F., Newton, I., Marchesi, L., and Pedrini, P. 2006. Ecologically justified charisma: Preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 43(1):1049–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Carver, E. (2009). Birding in the United States: A demographic and economic analysis. Report 2006–4. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
19 Jedlicka, J.A., Greenberg, R., and Letourneau, D.K. 2011. Avian conservation practices strengthen ecosystem services in California vineyards. PLoS ONE 6(11):e27347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Kross, S.M., Tylianakis, J.M., and Nelson, X.J. 2012. Effects of introducing threatened falcons into vineyards on abundance of passeriformes and bird damage to grapes. Conservation Biology 26(1):142–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21 Smallwood, J.A. and Collopy, M.W. 2009. Southeastern American Kestrels respond to an increase in the availability of nest cavities in north-central Florida. Journal of Raptor Research 43(4):291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Paz, A., Jareno, D., Arroyo, L., Vinuela, J., Arroyo, B., Mougeot, F., Lugue-Larena, J.J., and Fargallo, J.A. 2013. Avian predators as a biological control system of common vole (Microtus arvalis) populations in northwestern Spain: Experimental set-up and preliminary results. Pest Management Science 69(3):444–450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23 Morgan, D.L. and Krueger, R.A. 1998. Focus Group Kit. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
24 Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
25 Morgan, D.L. 1996. Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology 22:129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26 Guest, G., Bunce, A., and Johnson, L. 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1):59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Nielsen. 2013. U.S. women control the purse strings. Available at Web site http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2013/u-s--women-control-the-purse-strings.html (verified 31 July 2013).Google Scholar
28 Oh, C., Herrnstadt, Z., and Howard, P.H. 2015. Consumer willingness to pay for bird management in fruit crops. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 39(7):782–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., and Christian, L.M. 2009. Internet, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
30 Schoenherr, T., Ellram, L.M., and Tate, W.L. 2015. A note on the use of survey research firms to enable empirical data collection. Journal of Business Logistics 36(3):288–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. American community survey. Available at Web site http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_1YR_DP02&prodType=table (verified 25 August 2013).Google Scholar
32 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. Current population survey, 2012 annual social and economic supplement. Available at Web site http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/perinc/pinc02_1.xls (verified 25 August 2013).Google Scholar
33 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State and county QUICKFACTS. Available at Web site http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html (verified 25 August 2013).Google Scholar
34 Harper, G.C. and Makatouni, A. 2002. Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal 104(3/4/5):287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 Howard, P. 2006. Central Coast consumers want more food-related information, from safety to ethics. California Agriculture 60(1):14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Fox, N. and Ward, K. 2008. Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations. Appetite 50(2–3):422–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37 Bishop, R.C. and Heberlein, T.A. 1979. Measuring values of extramarket goods: Are indirect measures biased. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 61(1):926–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Buzby, J.C., Fox, J.A., Ready, R.C., and Crutchfield, S.R. 1998. Measuring consumer benefits of food safety risk reductions. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 30(1):69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Vermeir, I. and Verbeke, W. 2006. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19(2):169–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40 Pierson, D. 2013. Farmers using falcons to scare off crop-eating birds. Los Angeles Times. September 15. Available at Web site http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bird-control-20130915-story.html (verified 20 September 2013).Google Scholar
41 Szasz, A. 2007. Shopping Our Way to Safety: How We Changed From Protecting the Environment to Protecting Ourselves. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
42 Obach, B. 2015. Organic Struggle: The Movement for Sustainable Agriculture in the United States. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar