OSIPP Discussion Paper : DP-2008-E-001

Understanding the determinants of consumers’ willingness topay for eco-labeled products:
An empirical analysis of the China Environmental Label
January 7, 2008
Junyi Shen
Assistant Professor, OSIPP, Osaka University【キーワード】D12, Q28, Q51, China Environmental Label, Eco-labeled products, Interval
regression, Payment card, Willingness to pay【要約】This study applies data from a web-based survey conducted in mainland China to examine
the determinants of consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for seven different product categories
awarded with China Environmental Label and compare the mean WTP estimates among thesecategories. The Interval Regression method is used for estimation. The results indicate that Chinese
consumers who regard environmental conservation as being more important than life convenience,
who believe purchasing the eco-labeled products is good for the environment, and who have theexperience in purchasing eco-labeled products are willing to pay more for those products withenvironmental label or eco-label. In addition, socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, age,education and household income are found to be important factors to affect Chinese consumers’
WTP amounts. Finally, the results of pair-wise comparison among the mean WTP estimates ofvarious eco-labeled products indicate that most of them are different, which implies that the degrees
of Chinese consumers’ willingness to pay extra money for China Environmental Label are different
based on the types of products.
The author would like to appreciate the financial support of Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (Grants-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B), 19730175). All the views
expressed in this paper and any errors are the sole responsibility of the author. Correspondence to:
Junyi Shen, Osaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP), Osaka University, 1-31
Machikaneyama, Toyonaka, Osaka 560-0043, Japan. E-mail: junyi@osipp.osaka-u.ac.jp

11. Introduction
Environmental labels or eco-labels have been used for over twenty years to provide consumers
information about a product which is characterized by improved environmental performance andefficiency compared with similar products. The main purpose of providing this kind of label is to
avoid the asymmetric information problem between producers and consumers, because someenvironmentally friendly products normally have unobservable characteristics which will cause
potential inefficiencies resulting from imperfect information (Shen and Saijo, 2007a). There isenough evidence in the sense that a substantial part of environment problems have to do with theconsumption of goods. On the other hand, it is obvious that once the goods are produced, designed
and delivered into the market, there is not much that can be done to avoid environmental damage.
Consumers’ reactions are, consequently, crucial. In other words, because there is a need to influence
the way goods are produced, changes in consumer behavior are important and eco-labels constitute a
response (Gallastegui, 2002).
Beginning with the German Blue Angel in 1977, a number of eco-labeling schemes in theorganic food and electricity markets as well as the forestry products have been established in bothdeveloped and developing countries (e.g., Nordic Swan in the Nordic countries, EU Flower in EU
countries, Energy Star in USA, Eco-Mark in Japan and India, Environmental Choice in Canada and
New Zealand, Green Label in Singapore and Thailand, Environmental Label in China, etc.). Given
that eco-labeling is not costless, certification and labeling programs may not achieve their objectives
unless consumers are willing to pay for the underlying improvements in the production practices
specified by the program (Teisl et al. 2007). In other words, the growing popularity of eco-labeledproducts is primarily based on the market-driven approach to achieving environmental goals. The
increased concern of consumers for the environment and food safety, reflected by their willingness
to pay relatively higher prices for products that has been produced in an environmentally friendly
manner, provides a positive incentive for producers to choose techniques that minimize the adverse
effects on the environment and improve the quality of final products (Basu et al., 2003).
There is strong evidence to suggest that consumers are willing to pay relatively higher price forvarious eco-labeled products (Bjørner et al., 2004; Cason and Gangaharan, 2002; Johnston et al.,
2001; Loureiro and Hine, 2002; Loureiro et al., 2002; Moon et al., 2002; Roe et al., 2001; Shen and
Saijo, 2007a; Tisel et al., 2002), but little evidence to exhibit what determines the amount ofconsumers’ willingness to pay (WTP). In particular, limited to our knowledge, there is almost no
study in the literature examining and comparing the consumers’ WTP among various kinds of
eco-labeled products. However, under the consideration that consumers normally value variant typesof products differently even they are with the same label, thus, in order to well understand thedeterminants of consumers’ WTP for eco-labeled products, it is necessary to study different productswith the same label. With respect to the issue of the determinants of consumers’ WTP for eco-labeledproducts, economists and psychologists have developed a number of factors (e.g., consumers’
environmental concern, perceived consumer effectiveness, faith in others, perceived compromise,and consumers’ socio-demographic characteristics, etc.). Previous studies on these factors can be2

Figure 1. China Environmental Labelfound in Grankvist and Biel (2001), Lee and Holden (1999), Loureiro and Hine (2002), Stern (2000),
and Thøgersen (1999, 2000), etc.
The current study uses contingent valuation (CV) techniques to investigate the determinants ofconsumers’ WTP for seven product categories (i.e., furniture, appliance, building material, glass
tableware, recycled paper, battery, and soft drink) awarded with China Environmental Label (seeFigure 1) and compare the mean WTP estimates among these categories. 1 Note that these products
are quite different in both their effect on the environment and price level. We conducted a web-based
survey in which respondents were asked their hypothetical WTP for the above eco-labeled products
through a payment card method. 2 The WTP bids were provided by interval data (e.g., 6%~10%,
11%~20%, 21%~30%, etc.). Thus, an Interval Regression model was applied in the empiricalanalysis (see detailed description in the next section). An alternative estimation method for interval
data is midpoint estimation method. 3 However, the inherent presupposition of this method is that
individual’s expected WTP equals to the midpoint of the presented interval. If it is not the case,1

China Environmental Label was officially launched in 1994 by China Certification Committee forEnvironmental labeling Products (CCEL). CCEL, authorized by China State Bureau of Technology
Supervision (CSBTS), is the third party certification agency representing the government to deal
with environmental labeling certification as well as to administer and supervise the environmental
labeling program in China. Up to October 2007, more than 8,000 products in at least 50 productcategories have been awarded with the label.
2
The payment card method was first developed by Mitchell and Carson in 1981 as an alternative tothe bidding game. This method is sought to maintain the properties of the direct question by
providing respondents with a visual aid which contains a large array of potential WTP amounts,
ranging from 0 to some large amount (Mitchell and Carson, 1989).
3
The midpoint estimation approach refers to treating the midpoint of the presented interval as theWTP value and estimating by Ordinary Least Square (OLS).
3

midpoint estimation method will lead to significant biases in the estimates. 4
As a preview of the estimation results, Chinese consumers’ WTP amounts for various products
awarded with China Environmental Label are found to be mainly determined by consumers’ attitude
towards tradeoff between environmental conservation and life convenience, consumers’ belief inwhether purchasing eco-labeled products is good for the environmental, and consumers’ experienceof purchasing eco-labeled products. With respect to the effect of socio-demographic characteristics
on WTP amounts, gender, age, education and household income exhibit high significance in most of
the cases.
In the following section we briefly describe the empirical model. The data and survey issue aredescribed in Section 3. Results are presented in Section 4. Concluding remarks are provided in thelast section.

2. Empirical model
The interval data of WTP, which was elicited by a payment card method in our survey, can beanalyzed by applying an Interval Regression model (Cameron, 1987; Cameron and Huppert, 1989;
Wooldridge, 2002). 5 To motivate this model in our study, the respondent’s true valuation or WTP is
assumed to follow a linear function as given in Eq. (1). 6(1)
WTPi = α + xi' β + ε i'where WTPi is the latent WTP value of respondent i . α is the constant term. xi is a vector of
explanatory variables that affect respondent i ’s willingness to pay for various eco-labeled products.
β is the parameter vector associated with xi' . ε i is the error term assumed to be normally
distributed with mean zero and standard deviation σ .
Then, by standardizing each pair of lower internal threshold tli and upper internal threshold tui ,the probability that the true valuation or WTP lies between both thresholds can be given as(2)
Pr{WTPi ⊆ [tli , tui )} = Pr{(tli − α − xi' β ) / σ ≤ zi < (tui − α − xi' β ) / σ }where zi is the standard normal random variable. Consequently, the probability expressed in Eq.
(2) can be rewritten as the difference between two standard normal cumulative distributions
functions and is expressed as
Pr{WTPi ⊆ [tli , tui )} = Φ ( zui ) − Φ ( zli )(3)

Finally, based on Eq. (3), the log likelihood function is given aslog L =

N

∑ log[Φ( z ) − Φ( z )]
ui

li

(4)

i =1

4

Cameron (1987) applies Monte Carlo simulation and finds significant biases in the estimates,
especially when the WTP function is assumed as the log-normal function.
5
The Interval Regression model is also named as Grouped Data Regression model in several studies,e.g. Cameron (1987) and Cameron and Huppert (1989).
6
The respondent’s WTP can also be assumed to follow a log-linear function if the WTP bids do notinclude zero.
4The maximum likelihood method is then applied in estimating Eq. (4), which makes it possible
to investigate the determinants of consumers’ willingness to pay for eco-labeled products.
Consequently, the mean and median WTP values for different eco-labeled products can be predictedby using the estimated parameters and the corresponding means and medians of the explanatory
variables.

3. Data
We gathered data using a web-based survey. The survey was conducted by a professional
marketing firm (Searchina Research) during October of 2007 in mainland China. To ensure that thequestionnaire of the survey can be understood correctly by respondents, a pretest was conductedwith the students from Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Some of their general comments andsuggestions were then included in the final version of the survey.
At the beginning of the survey, respondents were randomly solicited via E-mails and asked fortheir voluntary participation in the survey. As a result, totally 1000 individuals covering eachprovince of mainland China responded to the survey. Table 1 summarizes the socio-demographic
characteristics of the sample. As shown in the table, 45.4% of the respondents were female, and theaverage age of the sample was about 30 years. 55.7% of the respondents had no child under 18 years
old in their household, and majority of the respondents had college (36%) or bachelor (47.7%)
degree. In addition, the mean household’s monthly income was about 5,000~5,999RMB, and theaverage number of staffs in the respondents’ company is about 100~499.
The questionnaire included three sections (see Appendix). In the first section, we asked the
respondents about their consideration on tradeoff between environmental conservation and life
convenience, whether they knew China Environmental Label, whether they believe purchasing the
eco-labeled products is good for the environment, and whether they have the experience ofpurchasing the eco-labeled products. The next 15 questions in the second section focused on eliciting
the respondents’ willingness to pay for the eco-labeled products. The questions were asked through“compared to the non-eco-labeled products, how much percentage you are willing to pay for the
price up of the corresponding products awarded with China Environmental Label”. 7 Finally, in thelast section, the respondents were asked to answer the questions about their socio-demographic
information such as gender, age, final completed education level, and net monthly householdincome.

7

We focused on seven eco-labeled product categories, i.e., furniture, appliance, building material,
glass tableware, recycled paper, battery, and soft drink. In addition, for the previous four categories,
we further divided them into three parts based on their price levels, i.e., higher price, regular price,and lower price (for definitions, see notes in Tables 2-a and 2-b).
5

Table 1. Variable definition and statistical description
Variable

Description

Label_know

Dummy variable, 0=the respondents do not know China Environmental

Label_believe

Dummy variable, 0=the respondents do not believe purchasing the

Mean

S.D.

0.664

0.472

0.916

0.277

0.750

0.433

0.393

0.488

Label, 1=the respondents know China Environmental Label.
eco-labeled products is good for the environment, 1=the respondents
believe purchasing the eco-labeled products is good for the environment.
Envi_tradeoff

Dummy variable, 0=the respondents favor life convenience more thanenvironmental conservation, 1=the respondents favor environmental
conservation more than life convenience.

Label_experience

Dummy variable, 0=the respondents do not have the experience ofpurchasing the eco-labeled products, 1=the respondents have theexperience of purchasing the eco-labeled products.

FemaleDummy variable, 0=male, 1=female.

0.454

0.498

Age

Age of the respondents.

29.95

7.249

Children

Dummy variable, 0=no children under 18 years old, 1=otherwise

0.443

0.497

Education

The final completed education level of the respondents

4.411

0.795

5.547

3.055

2.853

1.458

1=primary school

2=junior high school

3=high school

4=college

5=bachelor degree

6=master degree7=doctorate
IncomeStaff_number

Household’s monthly income level of the respondents
1<2,000RMB

2=2,000~2,999RMB

3=3,000~3,999RMB

4=4,000~4,999RMB

5=5,000~5,999RMB

6=6,000~6,999RMB

7=7,000~7,999RMB

8=8,000~8,999RMB

9=9,000~9,999RMB

10=10,000~14,999RMB

11=15,000~19,999RMB

12=>20,000RMB

Number of the staffs in the respondents’ company
1=1~49 staffs

2=50~99 staffs

3=100~499 staffs

4=500~999 staffs

5=>1,000 staffs

4. Results
Descriptive analysis
Tables 2-a, 2-b and 2-c report the percentages of the WTP intervals for eco-labeled furniture,appliance, building material, glass tableware, recycled paper, battery, and soft drink chosen by the
respondents. From the tables, we may observe that (i) for the bids larger than zero in all the productcategories, a negative relationship can be found between the percentages and the WTP bid amounts,
i.e., as the bids increase, the percentages decrease; and (ii) in the cases of furniture, appliance,

6

Table 2-a. Percentages of WTP for the eco-labeled furniture and applianceFurniture

WTP=0

WTP ⊂ 0－5%

WTP ⊂ 6－10%

WTP ⊂ 11－20%

WTP ⊂ 21－30%
WTP ⊂ 31－40%
WTP ⊂ 41－50%
WTP ⊂ 51－60%
WTP ⊂ 61－70%
WTP ⊂ 71－80%
WTP ⊂ 81－90%

WTP ⊂ 91－100%
WTP＞100%
a,d

Appliance

HigherpriceaRegularpricebLower
pricecHigherpricedRegularpriceeLowerpricef

14.1

13.7

12.8

16.7

15.6

14.9

37.4

37.3

38.3

37.0

36.7

38.1

28.1

27.8

25.4

26.3

29.4

25.6

10.4

10.6

11.5

10.6

9.1

9.9

4.3

4.5

4.7

4.0

4.1

4.6

1.9

2.2

2.2

1.8

1.5

1.9

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.4

0.5

1.6

1.0

0.6

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.7

0.3

0.6

0.7

0.4

1.2

0.6

0.3

0.4

0.7

0.4

0.7

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.7

0.6

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.4

denotes price＞4,000RMB.

b,edenotes price ⊂ 2,000－4,000RMB.

c,fdenotes price＜2,000RMB.

Table 2-b. Percentages of WTP for the eco-labeled building material and glass tableware
Building material

WTP=0

WTP ⊂ 0－5%

WTP ⊂ 6－10%

WTP ⊂ 11－20%

WTP ⊂ 21－30%
WTP ⊂ 31－40%
WTP ⊂ 41－50%
WTP ⊂ 51－60%
WTP ⊂ 61－70%
WTP ⊂ 71－80%
WTP ⊂ 81－90%

WTP ⊂ 91－100%
WTP＞100%adGlass tableware

HigherpriceaRegularpricebLower
pricecHigherpricedRegularpriceeLowerpricef

17.8

16.6

15.2

22.0

22.2

20.1

34.8

37.7

39.4

38.6

37.9

35.0

23.6

25.2

23.8

22.7

22.0

23.2

11.5

9.9

9.5

7.3

8.0

9.6

5.5

4.0

4.9

3.6

3.5

3.9

2.8

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.6

2.2

1.2

1.3

1.3

1.3

1.1

2.0

1.2

1.4

1.1

0.9

1.2

0.9

0.3

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.7

0.6

0.4

0.8

0.7

0.3

0.4

0.6

0.3

0.5

0.6

0.2

0.1

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.2

0.5

denotes price＞40,000RMB. denotes price ⊂ 20,000－40,000RMB. denotes price＜20,000RMB.
bcdenotes price＞1,000RMB. e denotes price ⊂ 300－1,000RMB. f denotes price＜300RMB.

building material and glass tableware, for the bid amount being zero, the percentages in the lower
price are lower than those in the regular and higher price. It is noted that both observations do notsurprise us because they are consistent with basic economic principle that demand negatively
responds to price.
7

Table 2-c. Percentages of WTP for the eco-labeled recycled paper, battery and soft drink
Recycled paper

Battery

Soft drink

20.5

19.1

23.4

37.4

37.4

37.3

20.6

20.4

18.2

9.2

9.5

8.2

4.5

4.2

4.5

2.4

2.1

1.5

1.4

1.6

1.5

1.1

1.5

1.4

0.8

1.1

1.2

0.6

0.9

1.0

WTP=0

WTP ⊂ 0－5%

WTP ⊂ 6－10%

WTP ⊂ 11－20%

WTP ⊂ 21－30%
WTP ⊂ 31－40%
WTP ⊂ 41－50%
WTP ⊂ 51－60%
WTP ⊂ 61－70%
WTP ⊂ 71－80%
WTP ⊂ 81－90%

0.5

0.8

0.6

WTP ⊂ 91－100%

0.5

0.7

0.6

WTP＞100%

0.4

0.7

0.6

Table 3-a. Determinants of WTP for the eco-labeled furniture, appliance, building material and glass
tableware
Furniture

Appliance

Building material

Glass tableware

Constant

0.091(3.58)***0.121(4.67)***0.143(5.54)***0.077(2.77)***

Label_know-0.016(1.30)-0.020(1.07)-0.007(1.02)-0.012(1.29)

Label_believe

0.028(3.71)***0.023(2.75)***0.009(1.01)

0.006(0.62)

Envi_tradeoff

0.025(4.31)***0.028(4.82)***0.020(3.33)***0.024(4.00)***Label_experience

0.015(2.52)**

0.021(3.61)***0.014(2.10)**0.012(1.96)**

Female-0.013(2.27)**-0.007(2.28)**-0.008(2.19)**-0.005(1.81)*

Age-0.001(2.66)***-0.001(3.65)***-0.002(3.69)***-0.001(3.16)***

Children-0.005(0.78)-0.008(1.26)-0.004(0.70)-0.007(1.04)

Education

0.003(0.86)

0.006(1.68)*

0.008(2.08)**0.004(2.21)**

Income0.004(3.88)***0.002(1.79)*

0.002(2.49)**0.004(3.54)***

Staff_number

0.003(1.60)

0.001(0.83)

0.001(0.42)

0.002(0.90)

High price-0.012(1.76)*-0.007(1.16)-0.008(2.15)**-0.014(2.08)**

Regular price-0.008(1.22)-0.006(0.94)-0.005(0.76)-0.008(1.14)

Sigma

0.143***

0.140***

0.147***

0.148***

Log-likelihood-6059.36-5853.15-5930.88-5464.48

Observations

3000

3000

3000

3000

Absolute robust z statistics are in parentheses. * significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%

8

Table 3-b. Determinants of WTP for the eco-labeled recycled paper, battery and soft drink
Recycled paper

Battery

Soft drink

Constant

0.027(0.59)

0.068(1.66)*

0.082(1.88)*

Label_know-0.014(1.33)-0.008(0.65)-0.013(1.07)

Label_believe

0.008(2.43)**-0.010(0.51)

0.009(1.76)*

Envi_tradeoff

0.014(2.39)**0.023(2.16)**0.026(2.44)**

Label_experience

0.022(2.18)**

0.016(1.36)

0.014(1.16)

Female-0.016(1.67)*-0.019(1.82)*-0.021(2.08)**Age-0.0003(0.40)-0.001(2.00)**-0.001(2.01)**

Children-0.001(0.07)-0.003(0.25)

0.0005(0.04)

Education

0.009(1.51)

0.010(1.65)*

0.005(0.82)

Income0.004(2.60)***0.002(1.89)*

0.003(1.87)*

Staff_number-0.001(0.42)-0.002(0.74)-0.002(0.67)

Sigma

0.145***

0.153***

0.153***

Log-likelihood-1870.25-1986.48-1861.58

Observations

1000

1000

1000

Absolute robust z statistics are in parentheses. * significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%

Determinants of WTP amounts
Estimation results for the determinants affecting WTP for the seven eco-labeled products arepresented in Tables 3-a and 3-b, respectively. With respect to the variable referring to consideration
on tradeoff between environmental conservation and life convenience (represented by Envi_tradeoff),
it is significantly estimated with positive sign, implying that consumers who weigh environmental
conservation more than life convenience are willing to pay more for all the seven eco-labeledproducts. In other words, consumers with higher environmental consciousness tend to behave
pro-environmentally. In addition, the variable of consumers having the experience of purchasing the
eco-labeled products (reflected by Label_experience) is estimated with significant and positive signin five of seven product categories (i.e., furniture, appliance, building material, glass tableware andrecycled paper), suggesting that having the experience in purchasing the eco-labeled products is also
an important factor affecting consumers’ WTP for the environmental label. Furthermore,
Label_believe reflecting the respondents who believe purchasing the eco-labeled products is goodfor the environment is estimated with significantly positive sign in furniture, appliance, recycled
paper and soft drink. This evidence is plausible because if consumers do not believe green
purchasing is good for the environment, it may be true that they will not be willing to pay extra
money for pro-environmental products. Label_know is not significant in any cases, implying thathaving already known China Environmental Label is not relevant to consumers’ WTP for
eco-labeled products.
9

Table 4. Mean WTP estimates and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests
Furniture
Mean WTP

9.46

Furniture－

Appliance

Appliance
9.00

Building

Glass

Recycled

material

tableware

paper

9.51

8.71

8.77

Battery

Soft
drink

9.46

24.24***－

Building material-0.91-31.58***－Glass tableware

34.70***

12.28***

29.49***－

Recycled paper

4.06***-2.10**

3.19***-3.08***－

Battery-2.61***-9.09***-4.42***-9.93***-18.22***－

Soft drink

4.00***-2.27**

3.06***-3.21***-0.90

20.66***

8.78－* significant at 10%, ** significant at 5%, *** significant at 1%

Concerning the issue of socio-demographic characteristics affecting consumers’ WTP for
eco-labeled products, age is estimated with significant and negative sign in all the products except
recycled paper, suggesting that younger people in China are willing to pay more for eco-labeledproducts. In addition, the magnitude of this parameter implies that as consumers get one year older,
they are less willing to pay 0.1% of the price for those eco-labeled products. The variable female isestimated with significantly negative sign in all the seven categories. This evidence is, in part,consistent with the result of Shen and Saijo (2007b) that in China men are more concerned about theenvironment than women. While it is opposite to several previous studies (e.g., Hunter et al., 2004;
Mohai, 1992; Schahn and Holzer, 1990) and the “white male effect” found in US (e.g., Finucane etal., 2000; Flynn et al., 1994; Satterfield et al., 2004), the possible reasons for its happening havebeen provided in Shen and Saijo (2007b) which is stated that in China men are likely to be morealtruistic, more politically active, and have relatively higher levels of education than women. In
addition, income seems to be an important factor to determine the WTP amount for eco-labeledproducts because significant and positive sign of this variable is estimated in all the categories. This
result suggests that consumers with higher household income are willing to pay more for eco-labeledproducts. Meanwhile, the variable of education is also found to be significantly and positively
correlated with WTP values in four of the seven categories (i.e., appliance, building material, glass
tableware and battery). Two other variables children and staff_number are not significant in any
cases.
The effect of eco-labeled products’ price level on WTP is also examined in four productcategories (i.e., furniture, appliance, building material and glass tableware) and presented in Table
3-a. The variable higher price is significantly estimated with negative sign in three products, whilethe variable regular price is not statistically significant in any products. These results indicate thatwhen facing products with relatively higher price, consumers’ willingness to pay for the eco-label
would be reduced. It is thought to be plausible because purchasing products with relatively higher
price means a relatively larger capital expense to consumers, which leads to the risk associated withan incorrect decision being high. Therefore, if the consumers are risk-averse, they are clearly less10

willing to pay more for eco-labeled products with higher price level.
Comparison among mean WTP estimates
Mean WTP estimates for the seven eco-labeled products are presented in the second row of Table
4. These values are evaluated by the estimated parameters presented in Tables 3-a and 3-b and meansof the corresponding explanatory variables. We find that Chinese consumers are willing to pay
8.71%~9.51% in average for the corresponding products awarded with China Environmental Label.
With respect to comparisons of mean WTPs for different kinds of products, a non-parametric
Wilcoxon signed-rank test (Wilcoxon, 1945) is applied to test the hypothesis whether any pair ofmean WTP is equal. Results presented in Table 4 indicate that all the pairs of mean WTP values
except two (i.e., furniture vs. building material and recycled paper vs. soft drink) are significantly
different at a high significance level, suggesting that the percentage of willingness to pay extra
money for different eco-labeled products varies among products. 8

5. Conclusion
In this study we apply data from a web-based survey conducted in China to examine thedeterminants of consumers’ WTP for seven different product categories awarded with China
Environmental Label and compare the mean WTP estimates among these categories. Interval
regression results indicate that Chinese consumers who regard environmental conservation as being
more important than life convenience, who believe purchasing the eco-labeled products is good forthe environment, and who have the experience in purchasing eco-labeled products are willing to pay
more for those products with environmental label. In addition, socio-demographic characteristics
such as gender, age, education and income are found to be important factors to affect Chinese
consumers’ WTP amounts.
The results of pair-wise comparison among the mean WTP estimates of various eco-labeledproducts indicate that most of them are different, which implies that the degrees of Chinese
consumers’ willingness to pay extra money for China Environmental Label are different based on thetypes of products. This result is not surprising to us because consumers usually evaluate variant
products differently. However, it is considered to be important to both environmental policy decision
makers and producers. For the decision makers, because consumers prefer to pay extra money forenvironmentally friendly products, thus, it is worthy of considering enlarging the range of products
awarded with environmental label. For the producers, it may create both incentives to invest in green
production technology and adjust the prices of their eco-labeled prices as a marketing strategy to
8

There may be the case that the absolute WTP value is different but the percentage of WTP is thesame. Thus, in this sense the evidence that the differences in the percentages of WTP for various
products labeled with China Environmental Label found in the present study is a relatively stronger
result.
11

meet consumers’ needs.
Finally, the present study is suggestive of two areas for continued research. First, the results andfindings are based on consumers in China. Therefore, future studies targeting on consumers in othercountries are encouraged to make international comparisons on the issue of the determinants ofconsumers’ WTP for eco-labeled products and help ensure the validity of these findings. Second,
attributes of products, which may also be important in determining the WTP amount, are notincluded in the present study due to the difficult in survey design. We leave this issue as an open
question and expect a great effort to investigate it in future studies.

References
Basu, A. K., Chau, N. H., and Grote, U. 2003. Eco-labeling and stages of development. Review ofDevelopment Economics. 7. 228-247.
Bjørner, T. B., Hansen, L. G., and Russell, C. R. 2004. Environmental labeling and consumers’
choice – an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan. Journal of Environmental
Economics and Management. 47. 411-434.
Cameron, T. A. 1987. The impact of grouping coarseness in alternative grouped-data regression
models. Journal of Econometrics. 35. 37-57.
Cameron, T. A. and Huppert, D. D. 1989. OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values
with payment card interval data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 17.
230-246.
Cason, T. N. and Gangadharan, L. 2002. Environmental labeling and incomplete consumer
information in laboratory markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 43.
113-134.
Finucane, M. L., Slovis, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J., and Satterfield, T. A. 2000. Gender, race, andperceived risk: The ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk & Society. 2. 159-172.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Mertz, C. K. 1994. Gender, race, and perception of environmental healthrisks. Risk Analysis. 14. 1101-1108.
Gallastegui, I. G. 2002. The use of eco-labels: A review of the literature. European Environment. 12.
316-331.
Grankvist, G. and Biel, A. 2001. The importance of beliefs and purchase criteria in the choice of
eco-labeled food products. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 21. 405-410.
Hunter, L. M., Hatch, A., and Johnson, A. 2004. Cross-national gender variation in environmental
behaviors. Social Science Quarterly. 85. 677-694.
Johnston, R. J., Wessells, C. R., Donath, H., and Asche, F. 2001. Measuring consumer preferences
for ecolabeled seafood: An international comparison. Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics. 26. 20-39.
Lee, J. A. and Holden, S. J. S. 1999. understanding the determinants of environmentally conscious
behavior. Psychology and Marketing. 16. 373-392.
Loureiro, M. L. and Hine, S. 2002. Discovering niche markets: A comparison if consumer

12willingness to pay for local (Colorado Grown), organic, and GMO-free products. Journal of
Agricultural and Applied Economics. 34. 477-487.
Loureiro, M. L., McCluskey, J. J., and Mittelhammer, R. C. 2002. Will consumers pay a premium foreco-labeled apples?. Journal of Consumer Affairs. 36. 203-219.
Mitchell, R. C. and Carson, R. T. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent
Valuation Method. Resources for the Future. Washington, D. C. USA.
Mohai, P. 1992. Men, women and the environment: An examination of the gender gap inenvironmental concern activism. Society and Natural Resources. 5. 1-19.
Moon, W., Florkowski, W. J.,

Brückner, B., and Schonhof, I. 2002. Willingness to pay forenvironmental practices: Implications for eco-labeling. Land Economics. 78. 88-102.
Roe, B., Teisl, M. F., Levy, A., and Russell, M. 2001. US consumers’ willingness to pay for green
electricity. Energy Policy. 29. 917-925.
Satterfield, T. A., Mertz, C. K., and Slovic, P. 2004. Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in theface of risk. Risk Analysis. 24. 115-129.
Schahn, J. and Holzer, E. 1990. Studies of individual environmental concern: The role of knowledge,
gender and background variables. Environment and Behavior. 22. 767-786.
Shen, J. and Saijo, T. 2007a. Does energy efficiency label Alter consumers’ purchase decision? Alatent class approach on Shanghai data. Discussion Paper in Osaka School of International
Public Policy, DP-2007-E-005, Osaka University.
Shen, J. and Saijo, T. 2007b. Reexamining the relations between socio-demographic characteristics
and individual environmental concern: Evidence from Shanghai data. Journal of Environmental
Psychology. In press. doi:10.1016/j/jenvp.2007.10.003
Stern, P. C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal ofConsumer policy. 22. 461-478.
Teisl, M. F., Roe, B., and Hicks, R. L. 2002. Can eco-labels tune a market? Evidence fromdolphin-safe labeling. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. 43. 339-359.
Teisl, M. F., Noblet, C. L., and Rubin, J. 2007. The design of an eco-marketing and labeling programfor vehicles in Maine. In U. Grote, A. K. Basu, and N. H. Chau (eds), New Frontiers inEnvironmental and Social Labeling. Physica-Verlag Press. Heidelberg.
Thøgersen, J. 1999. The ethical consumer. Moral norms and packaging choice. Journal of Consumer
Policy. 22. 439-460.
Thøgersen, J. 2000. Psychological determinants of paying attention to eco-labels in purchasedecisions: Model development and multinational validation. Journal of Consumer Policy. 23.
285-313.
Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics. 1. 80-83.
Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. The MIT Press.
Massachusetts. USA.

13

Appendix
The contents of the questionnaire
1. How do you consider environmental conservation?
□ Environmental conservation is always prior□ Conserving the environment even if sacrificing life convenience to some extent□ Conserving the environment without sacrificing life convenience□ Life convenience always has higher priority
2. Do you know China Environmental Label?
□ Yes
□ No
3. Do you have the experience of purchasing the products with China Environmental Label?
□ Yes
□ No
4. Do you believe purchasing the eco-labeled products is good for the environment?
□ Yes
□ No
5. Compared to the non-eco-labeled furniture of which price is above 4,000RMB, how muchpercentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding furniture with China
Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
6. Compared to the non-eco-labeled furniture of which price is between 2,000RMB to 4,000RMB,
how much percentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding furniture with
China Environmental Label?

14□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
7. Compared to the non-eco-labeled furniture of which price is below 2,000RMB, how muchpercentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding furniture with China
Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
8. Compared to the non-eco-labeled appliance of which price is above 4,000RMB, how muchpercentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding appliance with China
Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%

15

□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
9. Compared to the non-eco-labeled appliance of which price is between 2,000RMB to 4,000RMB,
how much percentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding appliancewith China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
10. Compared to the non-eco-labeled appliance of which price is below 2,000RMB, how muchpercentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding appliance with China
Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%

16

□ Above 100%
11. Compared to the non-eco-labeled building material of which price is above 40,000RMB, howmuch percentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding building material
with China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
12. Compared to the non-eco-labeled building material of which price is between 20,000RMB to
40,000RMB, how much percentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding
building material with China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
13. Compared to the non-eco-labeled building material of which price is below 20,000RMB, howmuch percentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding building material
with China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price17□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
14. Compared to the non-eco-labeled glass tableware of which price is above 1,000RMB, how muchpercentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding glass tableware with
China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
15. Compared to the non-eco-labeled glass tableware of which price is between 300RMB to
1,000RMB, how much percentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding
glass tableware with China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%

18

□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
16. Compared to the non-eco-labeled glass tableware of which price is below 300RMB, how muchpercentage you are willing to pay for the price up of the corresponding glass tableware with
China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
17. Compared to the non-eco-labeled recycled paper, how much percentage you are willing to pay
for the price up of the corresponding recycled paper with China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%19

18. Compared to the non-eco-labeled battery, how much percentage you are willing to pay for the
price up of the corresponding battery with China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
19. Compared to the non-eco-labeled soft drink, how much percentage you are willing to pay for the
price up of the corresponding soft drink with China Environmental Label?
□ At the same price□ Below 5%□ 6%~10%□ 11%~20%□ 21%~30%□ 31%~40%□ 41%~50%□ 51%~60%□ 61%~70%□ 71%~80%□ 81%~90%□ 91%~100%□ Above 100%
20. Your gender□ Male□ Female
21. Your age: ()

22. Do you have children under 18 years old living in the household?
□ Yes

20

□ No
23. Your final completed education level□ Primary school□ Junior high school□ High school□ College□ Bachelor degree□ Master degree□ Doctorate
24. Net monthly household income□ Below 2,000RMB□ 2,000~2,999RMB□ 3,000~3,999RMB□ 4,000~4,999RMB□ 5,000~5,999RMB□ 6,000~6,999RMB□ 7,000~7,999RMB□ 8,000~8,999RMB□ 9,000~9,999RMB□ 10,000~14,999RMB]□ 15,000~19,999RMB□ Above 20,000RMB
25. Staff number in your company□ Below 50□ 50~99□ 100~499□ 500~999□ Above 1,000

21