Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Regular Articles

Early View

Ecosystem Services in Food Labels: the Role of Different Information Layers in Shaping Consumers Preferences

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ecag2026oa21360
Submitted
ottobre 29, 2025
Published
2026-02-17

Abstract

Information on the provision of ecosystem services has the potential to contribute to an integrative food labeling framework. This study examines that potential by explicitly communicating ecosystem services provided by agricultural producers. The research analyzes how different label formats- ranging from generic references to ecosystem services to specific indicators-influence consumer preferences. An on field Discrete Choice Experiment was conducted with 552 Italian consumers of extra virgin olive oil. A Latent Class Model identified consumer heterogeneity, and to address the endogeneity of environmental attitudes in class allocation, a two-stage Control Function approach was applied. Two consumer segments emerged. The first, showed a consistently higher and statistically significant willingness to pay for sustainability attributes. Their willingness to pay increased with the level of informational detail. However, a negative halo effect was observed when ecosystem services labels appeared alongside organic certification, suggesting a perception of redundancy. The second segment was more price-sensitive and resistant to additional information. From a policy perspective, the results indicate how ecosystem service labeling strategies, particularly when linked to measurable environmental outcomes, can stimulate market-based incentives.

References

  1. Alcorta, P., & Mariel, P. (2025). Beyond biases: Exploring endogeneity in the allocation function of latent class models for environmental valuation. Resource and Energy Economics, 83, 101498. Doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2025.101498.
  2. Altmann, A., & Berger Filho, A. G. (2020). Certification and labeling for conservation of ecosystem services in the Pampa Biome: Case study of the Aliança do Pastizal scheme. Ecosystem Services, 46, 101209.
  3. Ammann, J., Arbenz, A., Mack, G., & Siegrist, M. (2025). Consumer support of policy measures to increase sustainability in food consumption. Food Policy, 131, 102822.
  4. Aprile, M. C., & Punzo, G. (2022). How environmental sustainability labels affect food choices: Assessing consumer preferences in southern Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 332, 130046.
  5. Asioli, D., Fuentes-Pila, J., Alarcón, S., Han, J., Liu, J., Hocquette, J.-F., & Nayga, R. M. (2022). Consumers’ valuation of cultured beef Burger: A Multi-Country investigation using choice experiments. Food Policy, 112, 102376.
  6. Bazzani, C., Scarpa, R., Begalli, D., & Capitello, R. (2025). Reporting nutritional information on wine packaging: Does it affect consumers’ choices? Evidence from a choice experiment in Italy. Food Policy, 131, 102800.
  7. Bliemer, M. C., Rose, J. M., & Hess, S. (2008). Approximation of Bayesian efficiency in experimental choice designs. Journal of Choice Modelling, 1(1), 98-126.
  8. Boncinelli, F., Gerini, F., Piracci, G., Bellia, R., & Casini, L. (2023). Effect of executional greenwashing on market share of food products: An empirical study on green-coloured packaging. Journal of Cleaner Production, 391, 136258. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136258.
  9. Borrello, M., Cecchini, L., Vecchio, R., Caracciolo, F., Cembalo, L., & Torquati, B. (2022). Agricultural landscape certification as a market-driven tool to reward the provisioning of cultural ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 193, 107286.
  10. Borrello, M., Cembalo, L., & Vecchio, R. (2021). Role of information in consumers’ preferences for eco-sustainable genetic improvements in plant breeding. PLOS ONE, 16(7), e0255130. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255130.
  11. Bouwma, I., Schleyer, C., Primmer, E., Winkler, K. J., Berry, P., Young, J., Carmen, E., Špulerová, J., Bezák, P., & Preda, E. (2018). Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosystem Services, 29, 213-222.
  12. Califano, G., Vita, G. D., Raimondo, M., Spina, D., D’Amico, M., & Caracciolo, F. (2025). Premium pricing for zero residue certification: The role of environmental concern and health consciousness in consumer preferences for eco-labels on fresh tomatoes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 518, 145928. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145928.
  13. Canavari, M., Castellini, A., & Xhakollari, V. (2023). A short review on willingness to pay for novel food. Case Studies on the Business of Nutraceuticals, Functional and Super Foods, 21-30.
  14. Canavari, M., & Coderoni, S. (2020). Consumer stated preferences for dairy products with carbon footprint labels in Italy. Agricultural and Food Economics, 8(1), 4. Doi: 10.1186/s40100-019-0149-1.
  15. Canavari, M., Wongprawmas, R., & Di Muro, M. (2016). Consumers’ preferences and willingness-to-pay for misfit vegetables. Economia agro-alimentare, XVIII(2), 133-154.
  16. Canavari, M., Bazzani, G.M., Spadoni, R., Regazzi, D. (2002). Food safety and organic fruit demand in Italy: a survey. British Food Journal, 104(3-4-5), 220-232. Doi: 10.1108/00070700210425688.
  17. Caputo, V., Lagoudakis, A., Shupp, R., & Bazzani, C. (2023). Comparing experimental auctions and real choice experiments in food choice: A homegrown and induced value analysis. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 50(5), 1796-1823. Doi: 10.1093/erae/jbad033.
  18. Caputo, V., Van Loo, E. J., Scarpa, R., Nayga Jr, R. M., & Verbeke, W. (2018). Comparing serial, and choice task stated and inferred attribute non‐attendance methods in food choice experiments. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(1), 35-57.
  19. Carlsson, F., Kataria, M., & Lampi, E. (2022). Sustainable food: Can information from food labels make consumers switch to meat substitutes?. Ecological Economics, 201, 107567.
  20. Casati, M., Soregaroli, C., Rommel, J., Luzzani, G., & Stranieri, S. (2023). Please keep ordering! A natural field experiment assessing a carbon label introduction. Food Policy, 120, 102523. Doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102523.
  21. Čehić, A., Canavari, M., Oplanić, M., & Cerjak, M. (2021). The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic local olive oil attributes for tourists: Evidence from a Mediterranean destination. European Journal of Tourism, Hospitality and Recreation, 11(2), 280-295.
  22. Cerroni, S., Watson, V., Kalentakis, D., & Macdiarmid, J. I. (2019). Value-elicitation and value-formation properties of discrete choice experiment and experimental auctions. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 46(1), 3-27. Doi: 10.1093/erae/jby014.
  23. Costanza, R. (2020). Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosystem Services, 43, 101096.
  24. Cummings, R. G., & Taylor, L. O. (1999). Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method. American Economic Review, 89(3), 649-665. Doi: 10.1257/aer.89.3.649.
  25. Czajkowski, M., Vossler, C. A., Budziński, W., Wiśniewska, A., & Zawojska, E. (2017). Addressing empirical challenges related to the incentive compatibility of stated preferences methods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 142, 47-63. Doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.07.023.
  26. Del Giudice, T., Cavallo, C., Caracciolo, F., & Cicia, G. (2015). What attributes of extra virgin olive oil are really important for consumers: A meta-analysis of consumers’ stated preferences. Agricultural and Food Economics, 3, 1-15.
  27. De-loyde, K., Pilling, M. A., Thornton, A., Spencer, G., & Maynard, O. M. (2025). Promoting sustainable diets using eco-labelling and social nudges: A randomised online experiment. Behavioural Public Policy, 9(2), 426-442. Doi: 10.1017/bpp.2022.27.
  28. Dipartimento delle Finanze (2022). Redditi e principali variabili Irpef su base Sub-Comunale (CAP) [Dataset]. -- https://www1.finanze.gov.it/finanze/analisi_stat/public/index.php?opendata=yes.
  29. Duckworth, J. J., Randle, M., McGale, L. S., Jones, A., Doherty, B., Halford, J. C. G., & Christiansen, P. (2022). Do front-of-pack ‘green labels’ increase sustainable food choice and willingness-to-pay in U.K. consumers? Journal of Cleaner Production, 371, 133466. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133466.
  30. FAO (2024). Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems – Global, regional and country trends, 2000-2022 (94; FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series, p. 11).
  31. Ferrini, S., & Scarpa, R. (2007). Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 53(3), 342-363.
  32. Fresacher, M., & Johnson, M. K. P. (2023). Designing climate labels for green food choices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 430, 139490. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139490.
  33. Gorton, M., Tocco, B., Yeh, C.-H., & Hartmann, M. (2021). What determines consumers’ use of eco-labels? Taking a close look at label trust. Ecological Economics, 189, 107173.
  34. Grebitus, C., Lusk, J. L., & Nayga Jr, R. M. (2013). Effect of distance of transportation on willingness to pay for food. Ecological Economics, 88, 67-75.
  35. Greene, W. H., & Hensher, D. A. (2003). A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 37(8), 681-698.
  36. Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177-189.
  37. Grunert, K. G., & Wills, J. M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15, 385-399.
  38. Guevara, C. A. (2018). Overidentification tests for the exogeneity of instruments in discrete choice models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 114, 241-253. Doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2018.05.020.
  39. Guevara, C. A., & Polanco, D. (2016). Correcting for endogeneity due to omitted attributes in discrete-choice models: The multiple indicator solution. Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 12(5), 458-478.
  40. Haines-Young, R. and Potschin-Young, M. (2018). Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES) v5. 1. guidance on the application of the revised structure.
  41. Hallström, E., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., & Börjesson, P. (2015). Environmental impact of dietary change: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 91, 1-11. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.008.
  42. Hartikainen, H., Roininen, T., Katajajuuri, J.-M., & Pulkkinen, H. (2014). Finnish consumer perceptions of carbon footprints and carbon labelling of food products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 73, 285-293. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.018.
  43. Hess, S., Shires, J., & Jopson, A. (2013). Accommodating underlying proenvironmental attitudes in a rail travel context: Application of a latent variable latent class specification. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 25, 42-48. Doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2013.07.003.
  44. Huang, L., Solangi, Y. A., Magazzino, C., & Solangi, S. A. (2024). Evaluating the efficiency of green innovation and marketing strategies for long-term sustainability in the context of Environmental labeling. Journal of Cleaner Production, 450, 141870. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141870.
  45. ISTAT (2021). Censimento Agricoltura 2020 – Superfici e Produzione [Dataset]. -- https://esploradati.istat.it/databrowser/#/it/dw/categories/IT1,Z1000AGR,1.0/AGR_CRP/DCSP_COLTIVAZIONI/IT1,101_1015_DF_DCSP_COLTIVAZIONI_2,1.0.
  46. Janßen, D., & Langen, N. (2017). The bunch of sustainability labels – Do consumers differentiate?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 1233-1245. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.171.
  47. Jaung, W., Putzel, L., & Naito, D. (2019). Can ecosystem services certification enhance brand competitiveness of certified products? Sustainable Production and Consumption, 18, 53-62.
  48. Jean, I. R., Canavari, M., Cerdan, C., Consentino, F., & Peri, I. (2025). Integrating biodiversity information into consumer preferences for extra virgin olive oil: Evidence from a real choice experiment in France. Journal of Cleaner Production, 497, 145121. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145121.
  49. Johnson, D., & Geisendorf, S. (2022). Valuing ecosystem services of sustainable urban drainage systems: A discrete choice experiment to elicit preferences and willingness to pay. Journal of Environmental Management, 307. Doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114508.
  50. Just, D. R., & Byrne, A. T. (2019). Evidence-based policy and food consumer behaviour: How empirical challenges shape the evidence. European Review of Agricultural Economics. Doi: 10.1093/erae/jbz010.
  51. Laksmawati, W. K., Hsieh, C.-M., & Yang, S.-H. (2024). Social influence and climate change issues affecting consumer behavioral intention toward carbon footprint label: A study of Taiwanese consumers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 444, 141092. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141092.
  52. Lancaster, K. J. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74(2), 132-157.
  53. Lin, W., & Nayga Jr, R. M. (2022). Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices. Food Policy, 106, 102187.
  54. Lusk, J. L., McFadden, B. R., & Wilson, N. (2018). Do consumers care how a genetically engineered food was created or who created it? Food Policy, 78, 81-90. Doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.02.007.
  55. Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J., & Fox, J. A. (2003). Demand for beef from cattle administered growth hormones or fed genetically modified corn: A comparison of consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(1), 16-29.
  56. Mameno, K., Kubo, T., Ujiie, K., & Shoji, Y. (2023). Flagship species and certification types affect consumer preferences for wildlife-friendly rice labels. Ecological Economics, 204, 107691. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107691.
  57. Marchi, E. D., Scappaticci, G., Banterle, A., & Alamprese, C. (2024). What is the role of environmental sustainability knowledge in food choices? A case study on egg consumers in Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 441, 141038. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141038.
  58. Mariel, P., & Arata, L. (2022). Incorporating attitudes into the evaluation of preferences regarding agri‐environmental practices. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 73(2), 430-451.
  59. Mariel, P., Campbell, D., Sandorf, E. D., Meyerhoff, J., Vega-Bayo, A., & Blevins, R. (2025). Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments in R: A Guide on Design, Implementation, and Data Analysis (Vol. 17). Springer Nature.
  60. Martínez-López, J., Bagstad, K. J., Balbi, S., Magrach, A., Voigt, B., Athanasiadis, I., Pascual, M., Willcock, S., & Villa, F. (2019). Towards globally customizable ecosystem service models. Science of the Total Environment, 650, 2325-2336.
  61. McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Fontiers in Econometrics, 105-142.
  62. Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437.
  63. Mediobanca - Area Studi (2024). L’industria dell’olio d’oliva in Italia. -- https://www.areastudimediobanca.com/en/product/28031.
  64. Muller, L., Lacroix, A., & Ruffieux, B. (2019). Environmental Labelling and Consumption Changes: A Food Choice Experiment. Environmental and Resource Economics, 73(3), 871-897. Doi: 10.1007/s10640-019-00328-9.
  65. Nes, K., & Ciaian, P. (2022). EU marketing standards and sustainability. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 44(4), 1844-1863.
  66. O’Brien, K., Garibaldi, L., & Agrawal, A. (2024). IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Full report (Version 4.0.0). Zenodo. Doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.11382215.
  67. Paffarini, C., Torquati, B., & Cecchini, L. (2025). The impact of multiple labeling on consumer choices for extra virgin olive oil: A cross-country study. Agricultural and Food Economics, 13(1), 1-28.
  68. Panico, T., Del Giudice, T., & Caracciolo, F. (2014). Quality dimensions and consumer preferences: A choice experiment in the Italian extra-virgin olive oil market. Agricultural Economics Review, 15(2), 100-112.
  69. Pe’er, G., Zinngrebe, Y., Moreira, F., Sirami, C., Schindler, S., Müller, R., Bontzorlos, V., Clough, D., Bezák, P., Bonn, A., Hansjürgens, B., Lomba, A., Möckel, S., Passoni, G., Schleyer, C., Schmidt, J., & Lakner, S. (2019). A greener path for the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Science, 365(6452), 449-451. Doi: 10.1126/science.aax3146.
  70. Perito, M. A., Sacchetti, G., Di Mattia, C. D., Chiodo, E., Pittia, P., Saguy, I. S., & Cohen, E. (2019). Buy local! Familiarity and preferences for extra virgin olive oil of Italian consumers. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 25(4), 462-477.
  71. Reisch, L. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Do Europeans like nudges? Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 310-325.
  72. Rondoni, A., & Grasso, S. (2021). Consumers behaviour towards carbon footprint labels on food: A review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 301, 127031. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127031.
  73. Rose, J. M., & Bliemer, M. C. (2013). Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation, 40, 1021-1041.
  74. Salazar-Ordóñez, M., Rodríguez-Entrena, M., & Villanueva, A. J. (2021). Exploring the commodification of biodiversity using olive oil producers’ willingness to accept. Land Use Policy, 107, 104348.
  75. Scarpa, R., & Del Giudice, T. (2004). Market segmentation via mixed logit: Extravirgin olive oil in urban Italy. Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, 2(1).
  76. Scarpa, R., Franceschinis, C., & Thiene, M. (2021). Logit mixed logit under asymmetry and multimodality of WTP: a Monte Carlo evaluation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 103(2), 643-662.
  77. Scarpa, R., & Rose, J. M. (2008). Design efficiency for non‐market valuation with choice modelling: How to measure it, what to report and why. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 52(3), 253-282.
  78. Scarpa, R., & Thiene, M. (2005). Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Economics, 81(3), 426-444.
  79. Scarpa, R., Thiene, M., & Train, K. (2008). Utility in willingness to pay space: A tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(4), 994-1010.
  80. Schulze, C., Matzdorf, B., Rommel, J., Czajkowski, M., García-Llorente, M., Gutiérrez-Briceño, I., Larsson, L., Zagórska, K., & Zawadzki, W. (2024). Between farms and forks: Food industry perspectives on the future of EU food labelling. Ecological Economics, 217, 108066. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108066.
  81. Searchinger, T., Waite, R., Hanson, C., Ranganathan, J., Dumas, P., Matthews, E., & Klirs, C. (2019). Creating a sustainable food future: A menu of solutions to feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050. Final report.
  82. Silva, A., Canavari, M., & Wander, A. (2018). Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for integrated production label on common beans. Economia agro-alimenatre, 11-28. Doi: 10.3280/ECAG2018-001002.
  83. Sørensen, H. S., Clement, J., & Gabrielsen, G. (2012). Food labels – an exploratory study into label information and what consumers see and understand. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 22(1), 101-114.
  84. Street, D. J., Bunch, D. S., & Moore, B. J. (2001). Optimal designs for 2 k paired comparison experiments. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 30(10), 2149-2171.
  85. Street, D. J., Burgess, L., & Louviere, J. J. (2005). Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 22(4), 459-470. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.003.
  86. Thiene, M., Scarpa, R., Longo, A., & Hutchinson, W. G. (2018). Types of front of pack food labels: Do obese consumers care? Evidence from Northern Ireland. Food Policy, 80, 84-102.
  87. Train, K., & Weeks, M. (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. Springer.
  88. United Nations et al. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). White cover publication, pre-edited text subject to official editing. -- https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-accounting.
  89. Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga Jr, R. M., Seo, H.-S., Zhang, B., & Verbeke, W. (2015). Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes. Ecological Economics, 118, 215-225.
  90. Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga Jr, R. M., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy, 49, 137-150.
  91. Voglhuber-Slavinsky, A., Lemke, N., MacPherson, J., Dönitz, E., Olbrisch, M., Schöbel, P., Moller, B., Bahrs, E., & Helming, K. (2023). Valorization for biodiversity and ecosystem services in the agri-food value chain. Environmental Management, 72(6), 1163-1188.
  92. Yagi, K., Maesano, G., Li, G., & Canavari, M. (2025). Olive Oil Preferences Among Japanese Consumers: Best‐Worst Scaling on Country of Origin and Consumer Heterogeneity. Agribusiness.