New Value to Wool: Innovative Garments for Preservation of Sheep Landraces in Italy
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. The Regional Breeds Investigated
2.2. Gross Margin
2.3. Consumer Preferences for Wool Garments
2.3.1. The Consumer Questionnaire
2.3.2. The CE Design
- certified origin of wool for pullover: (i) Extra-EU or EU (no Italy); (ii) Italy (no Basilicata); (iii) Basilicata. For Extra-EU, EU and Italian origin, Merino was considered, while the regional wool was supposed to derive from Gentile di Puglia;
- production area of pullover: (i) Extra-EU or EU (no Italy); (ii) Italy (no Basilicata); (iii) Basilicata. The choice of an Italian or regional product should indicate the interest of consumers in the high-quality sartorial working, in fair work and in the absence of dangerous substances for human health and environment used for breeding and textile processing;
- weaving technique: (i) modern technique: manufacturing of textile products by industrial looms and fully-mechanized processing; (ii) traditional technique: manufacturing of textile products by hand-operated looms, manual processing and knitted trims; it is based on traditional know-how and patterns;
- occasion of use: (i) home: for the usual daily activities; (ii) work: for office, etc.); (iii) special event, for evening with relatives, friends or colleagues, parties, ceremonies, etc.);
- price: the price vector was defined through a market survey on web sites of the main clothing resellers (Amazon, Zalando, AliExpress, Asos, eBay, Privalia, Yoox and Farfetch); in this respect, characteristics and prices of 239 men’s and women’s pullovers for the 2018 autumn/winter season were collected and analyzed.
2.3.3. The Econometric Model
2.4. Bass Diffusion Model
- innovators, who buy the product first and are influenced only by “external communication”, namely mass media or advertisement;
- imitators, who buy the product if others have already bought it and are influenced by word of mouth or so-called “internal communication”.
3. Results
3.1. Farm Economic Performance of Gentile di Puglia in Basilicata
3.2. Consumer Preferences for Wool Garments
3.3. Diffusion of Wool Garments
3.4. Farm Economic Performance of Gentile di Puglia in Basilicata by Including Wool Selling
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mahon, N.; McGuire, S.; Islam, M.M. Why bother with Bere? An investigation into the drivers behind the cultivation of a landrace barley. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 45, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jackson, L.E.; Brussaard, L.; de Ruiter, P.C.; Pascual, U.; Perrings, C.; Bawa, K. Agrobiodiversity. In Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013; pp. 126–135. [Google Scholar]
- Sardaro, R.; La Sala, P. The technical efficiency of the Apulian winegrowing farms with different irrigation water supply systems. Econ. AgroAliment. 2020, 22, 10410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, J.; Wu, X.; Tang, J.-J.; Zhang, J.-E.; Luo, S.-M.; Chen, X. Conservation of traditional rice varieties in a globally important agricultural heritage system (GIAHS): Rice-fish co-culture. Agric. Sci. Chin. 2011, 10, 754–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sardaro, R.; La Sala, P.; Roselli, L. How does the land market capitalize environmental, historical and cultural components in rural areas? Evidence from Italy. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 269, 110776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sardaro, R.; Grittani, R.; Scrascia, M.; Pazzani, C.; Russo, V.; Garganese, F.; Porfido, C.; Diana, L.; Porcelli, F. The Red Palm Weevil in the city of Bari: A first damage assessment. Forests 2018, 9, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Basile, G.; Cavallo, A. Rural Identity, Authenticity, and Sustainability in Italian Inner Areas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, P. (Ed.) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; Routledge: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Evenson, R.E.; Gollen, D. Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 2003, 300, 758–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sardaro, R.; Bozzo, F.; Fucilli, V. High-voltage overhead transmission lines and farmland value: Evidences from the real estate market in Apulia, southern Italy. Energy Policy 2018, 119, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acciani, C.; Sardaro, R. Perception of risk by electromagnetic fields in the context of power-line easement: Impact on agricultural land value. Aestimum 2014, 64, 39–55. [Google Scholar]
- Narloch, U.; Drucker, A.G.; Pascual, U. What role for cooperation in conservation tenders? Paying farmer groups in the High Andes. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 659–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wale, E. A study on financial opportunity costs of growing local varieties of sorghum in Ethiopia: Implications for on-farm conservation policy. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 64, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bellon, M.R.; Gotor, E.; Caracciolo, F. Assessing the effectiveness of projects supporting on-farm conservation of native crops: Evidence from the high Andes of South America. World Dev. 2015, 70, 162–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Del Rossi, G.; Hecht, J.S.; Zia, A. A mixed-methods analysis for improving farmer participation in agri-environmental payments for ecosystem services in Vermont, USA. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 47, 101223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wunder, S. Payments for Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts; Occasional Paper No. 42; Center for International Forestry Research: Bogor, Indonesia, 2005; Available online: https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2021).
- Ruto, E.; Garrod, G. Investigating farmers’ preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: A choice experiment approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52, 631–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Istat. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/agricoltura?dati (accessed on 30 January 2021).
- Sardaro, R.; Fucilli, V.; Acciani, C. Measuring the value of rural landscape in support of preservation policies. Scienze Regionali 2015, 14, 125–138. [Google Scholar]
- Petrillo, F.; Sardaro, R. Urbanizzazione in chiave neoliberale e progetti di sviluppo a grande scala. Scienze Regionali 2014, 13, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Regione Basilicata. Rural Development Programme (Regional)—Basilicata. Regione Basilicata, 2015. Available online: https://www.reterurale.it/PSR2014_2020 (accessed on 30 January 2021).
- Ndjeunga, J.; Nelson, C.H. Toward understanding household preference for consumption characteristics of millet varieties: A case study from western Niger. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birol, E.; Smale, M.; Gyovai, A. Using a choice experiment to estimate farmers’ valuation of agrobiodiversity on Hungarian small farms. Environ. Res. Econ. 2006, 34, 439–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altobella, C.; Muscio, A. Origine della razza ovina Gentile del Tavoliere di Puglia. In Proceedings of the L’allevamento Ovino in Capitanata tra Memoria e Futuro, Proceedings of National Conference, Foggia, Italy, 2 December 1995; Centrografica Francescano: Foggia, Italy, 1997; pp. 29–58. [Google Scholar]
- Sponenberg, D. Phillip. Genetic Resources and Their Conservation. In The Genetics of the Horse; Bowling, A.T., Ruvinsky, A., Eds.; Wallingford: Oxfordshire, UK, 2000; pp. 392–393. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, H.; Lister, D.L.; Bower, M.A.; Leigh, F.J.; Smith, L.M.; Jones, M.K. Approaches and Constraints of Using Existing Landrace Material to Understand Agricultural Spread in Prehistory. Plant Genet. Resour. 2008, 6, 98–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camacho, V.T.C.; Maxted, N.; Scholten, M.; Ford-Lloyd, B. Defining and Identifying Crop Landraces. Plant Genet. Res. 2005, 3, 373–384. [Google Scholar]
- Friis-Hansen, E.; Sthapit, B. (Eds.) Participatory Approaches to the Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources; International Plant Genetic Resources Institute: Rome, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Harlan, J.R. Crops and Man; American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America: Madison, Wisconsin, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Zeven, A.C. Landraces: A Review of Definitions and classifications. Euphytica 1998, 104, 127–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harlan, J.R. Agricultural Origins: Centers and Noncenters: Agriculture May Originate in Discrete Centers or Evolve Over Vast Areas without Definable Centers. Science 1971, 174, 468–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Idda, L.; Furesi, R.; Pulina, P. Economia Dell’allevamento Ovino da Latte. Produzione, Trasformazione, Mercato; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.M.; Beck, M.J. Are there specific design elements of choice experiments and types of people that influence choice response certainty? J. Choice Model. 2012, 5, 77–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brouwer, R.; Dekker, T.; Rolfe, J.; Windle, J. Choice certainty and consistency in repeated choice experiments. Environ. Res. Econ. 2010, 46, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Romy, G.; Bliemer, M.; Ballweg, J. Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation. J. Choice Model. 2014, 10, 34–45. [Google Scholar]
- Hensher, D.A.; Rose, J.M.; Greene, W.H. Applied Choice Analysis, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Johnston, R.J.; Boyle, K.J.; Adamowicz, W.; Bennett, J.; Brouwer, R.; Cameron, T.A.; Hanemann, W.M.; Hanley, N.; Ryan, M.; Scarpa, R.; et al. Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies. J. Assoc. Environ. Res. Econ. 2017, 4, 319–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coast, J.; McDonald, R.; Baker, R. Issues arising from the use of qualitative methods in health economics. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2004, 9, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quick, K.; Zhao, Z. Suggested Design and Management Techniques for Enhancing Public Engagement in Transportation Policymaking. University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy. 2011. Available online: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/116934 (accessed on 30 January 2021).
- Stewart, D.W.; Shamdasani, P.N. Focus Groups: Theory and Practice; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Pyrialakou, V.D.; Gkritzab, K.; Liu, S.S. The use of focus groups to foster stakeholder engagement in intercity passenger rail planning. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2019, 7, 505–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloor, M. Focus Groups in Social Research; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Flynn, T.N.; Louviere, J.J.; Peters, T.J.; Coast, J. Best-worst scaling: What it can do for health care research and how to do it. J. Health Econ. 2007, 26, 171–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rolfe, J.; Bennett, J. The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1140–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weller, P.; Oehlmann, M.; Mariel, P.; Meyerhoff, J. Stated and inferred attribute non-attendance in a design of designs approach. J. Choice Model. 2014, 11, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- de Bekker-Grob, E.W. Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Care: Theory and Applications; Erasmus University: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Vermeulen, B.; Goos, P.; Scarpa, R.; Vandebroek, M. Bayesian conjoint choice designs for measuring willingness to pay. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2011, 48, 129–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lancaster, K.J. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 1966, 74, 132–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thurstone, L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 1927, 34, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K.E. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D. The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research. Mark. Sci. 1986, 5, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halton, J.H. On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multidimensional integrals. Numerische Mathematik 1960, 2, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhat, C.R. Simulation estimation of mixed discrete choice models using randomized and scrambled Halton sequences. Transp. Res. Part B Meth. 2003, 37, 837–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Greene, W.H.; Hensher, D.A. A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: Contrasts with mixed logit. Transp. Res. Part B Meth. 2003, 37, 681–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krinsky, I.; Robb, A.L. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. Rev. Econ. Stat. 1986, 68, 715–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bass, F.M. A new product growth for model consumer durables. Manag. Sci. 1969, 15, 215–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieragostini, E.; Rubino, G.; Bramante, G.; Rullo, R.; Petazzi, F.; Caroli, A. Functional effect of haemoglobin polymorphism on the haematological pattern of Gentile di Puglia sheep. J. Anim. Breed Genet. 2006, 123, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Com (2020) 98 Final—A New Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Zheljazkov, V.D.; Stratton, G.W.; Sturz, T. Uncomposted wool and hairwastes as soil amendment for high-value crops. Agron. J. 2008, 100, 1605–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheljazkov, V.D.; Stratton, G.W.; Pincock, J.; Butler, S.; Jeliazkova, E.A.; Nedkov, N.K.; Gerard, P.D. Wool-waste as organic nutrient source for container-grown plants. Waste Manag. 2009, 29, 2160–2164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nustorova, M.; Braikova, D.; Gousterova, A.; Vsileva-Tonkova, E.; Nedkov, P. Chemical, microbiological and plant analysis of soil fertilized with alkaline hydrolysate of sheep’s wool waste. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006, 22, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evangelou, M.W.H.; Ebel, M.; Koerner, A.; Schaeffer, A. Hydrolysed wool: A novel chelating agent for metal chelant-assisted phytoextraction from soil. Chemosphere 2008, 72, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, K.; Tollner, E.W.; Annis, P.A. Bioconversion process design applied to textile industry solid wastes. In Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural Engineering Annual International Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 10–14 August 1997. Paper # 975022. [Google Scholar]
- Verville, R.R. Organic feedstock generators team up with local farmers. BioCycle 1996, 37, 58–61. [Google Scholar]
- Duppong, L.M.; Delate, K.; Liebman, M.; Horton, R.; Romero, F.; Kraus, G.; Petrich, J.; Chowdbury, P.K. The effect of natural mulches on crop performance, weed suppression and biochemical constituents of catnip and St. John’s wort. Crop Sci. 2004, 44, 861–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, V.N.; Pathak, A.N.; Lehri, L.K. Effect of cattle dung and rock phosphate on composting of wool-waste. Biol. Wastes 1989, 27, 237–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, V.N.; Pathak, A.N.; Lehri, L.K. Response to differently amended woolwaste composts on yield and uptake of nutrients by crops. Biol. Wastes 1989, 28, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corscadden, K.W.; Biggs, J.N.; Stiles, D.K. Sheep’s wool insulation: A sustainable alternative use for a renewable resource? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2014, 86, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Dahlan, N.D.; Berardi, U.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Makaremi, N.; Ghaffarianhoseini, M. Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: A review of current theories, implementations and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 25, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Z.; Wells, C.M.; Carrington, C.G.; Hewitt, N.J. Thermal conductivity of wool and woolhemp insulation. Int. J. Energy Resour. 2006, 30, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sardaro, R.; Faccilongo, N.; Roselli, L. Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy. Energy Policy 2019, 133, 110885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sardaro, R.; De Pascale, G.; Ingrao, C.; Faccilongo, N. Latent relationships between environmental impacts of cultivation practices and land market: Evidences from a spatial quantile regression analysis in Italy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannoccaro, G.; Carlucci, D.; Sardaro, R.; Roselli, L.; De Gennaro, B.C. Assessing consumer preferences for organic vs eco-labelled olive oils. Org. Agric. 2019, 9, 483–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Attributes | Levels |
---|---|
Certified origin of wool | Extra-EU or EU (no Italy) Italy (no Basilicata) Basilicata |
Production area of pullover | Extra-EU or EU (no Italy) Italy (no Basilicata) Basilicata |
Weaving technique | Modern Traditional |
Occasion of use | Home Work Special event (evening with relatives, friends or colleagues, parties, ceremonies) |
Price (€/pullover) | 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 |
Attributes | Pullover A | Pullover B | No Pullover |
---|---|---|---|
Certified origin of wool | Extra-EU or EU (no Italy) | Basilicata | I do not use wool pullover |
Production area of pullover | Italy | Basilicata | |
Weaving technique | Modern | Traditional | |
Occasion of use | Home | Special event | |
Price (€/pullover) | 60 | 120 | |
My choice | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
Data Source | Ha | 0–5 | 5.1–20 | 20.1–50 | >50 | Total-Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Survey sample | Animals (n) | 510 | 1588 | 1910 | 2427 | 6435 |
Farms (n) | 13 | 29 | 11 | 9 | 62 | |
Animals/farm | 39 | 55 | 174 | 270 | 134.3 | |
Istat census) (2010) | Animals (n) | 21,700 | 69,606 | 75,520 | 96,181 | 263,007 |
Farms (n) | 749 | 1440 | 702 | 493 | 3384 | |
Animals/farm | 29 | 48 | 108 | 195 | 95.0 | |
Var. % survey sample/Istat census | Animals | −0.3 | −1.8 | 1.0 | 1.1 | |
Farms | −1.2 | 4.2 | −3.0 | −0.1 |
Economic Index | Excluding EU Aids | Including EU Aids | FADN (2018) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comisana | Gentile di Puglia | Diff. % | Comisana | Gentile di Puglia | Diff. % | ||
Meat revenue | 11.1 | 5.6 | −49.7 | 11.1 | 5.6 | −49.7 | |
Milk revenue | 16.9 | 4.8 | −71.5 | 16.9 | 4.8 | −71.5 | |
Wool revenue | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Stable gross profit | 87.3 | 28.9 | −66.9 | 87.3 | 28.9 | −66.9 | 74.6 |
Reused/Processed production | 29.6 | 10.8 | −63.5 | 29.6 | 10.8 | −63.5 | |
RDP 2014–2020 (Sub-measure 10.1) | - | - | - | - | 27.0 | 100.0 | |
Total gross production | 144.9 | 50.1 | −65.4 | 144.9 | 77.1 | −46.8 | 102.8 |
Lamb feeding cost | 4.3 | 3.6 | −16.3 | 4.3 | 3.6 | −16.3 | |
Fodder cost | 20.3 | 15.6 | −23.2 | 20.3 | 15.6 | −23.2 | |
Concentrates cost | 5.5 | 2.4 | −56.4 | 5.5 | 2.4 | −56.4 | |
Veterinary and sanitation cost | 9.1 | 7.8 | −14.3 | 9.1 | 7.8 | −14.3 | |
Watering cost | 0.8 | 0.7 | −12.5 | 0.8 | 0.7 | −12.5 | |
Shearing and disposal cost | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | |
Total specific costs | 43.0 | 33.1 | −23.0 | 43.0 | 33.1 | −23.0 | 39.0 |
Gross margin | 101.9 | 17.0 | −83.3 | 101.9 | 44.0 | −56.8 | 61.9 |
Variables | Categories/Ranges | Sample Respondents | Sample Respondents | Regional Census 2020 |
---|---|---|---|---|
(n.) | (%) | (%) | ||
Gender | Male | 244 | 48.8 | 49.2 |
Female | 256 | 51.2 | 50.8 | |
Age (years) | 18–30 | 87 | 17.4 | 15.5 |
31–50 | 176 | 35.2 | 34.1 | |
51–65 | 142 | 28.4 | 30.0 | |
65–79 | 95 | 19.0 | 20.4 | |
Education level | None/ Primary school/Middle school | 327 | 65.4 | 62.9 |
Secondary school/Bachelor degree | 173 | 34.6 | 37.1 a | |
Employment | Primary sector | 52 | 10.4 | 8.2 |
Secondary sector | 143 | 28.6 | 26.7 | |
Tertiary sector | 305 | 61.0 | 65.1 a | |
Net income (€ year−1) | 0–15,000 | 295 | 59.0 | 54.8 a |
15,001–30,000 | 153 | 30.5 | 32.5 | |
>30,000 | 53 | 10.5 | 12.7 | |
Do you use wool pullovers (wool >30%)? | Yes | 474 | 94.8 | |
No | 26 | 5.2 | ||
Usual place of purchase of wool pullovers | Local market | 145 | 30.5 | |
Shopping center, Mall | 204 | 43.1 | ||
Atelier | 82 | 17.4 | ||
Boutique | 43 | 9.0 | ||
Origin of information influencing the purchase of wool pullovers | Family | 44 | 9.3 | |
Friends | 147 | 31.1 | ||
Acquaintance | 127 | 26.8 | ||
Advertisements/promotions from web and media | 155 | 32.8 |
Choice | Coefficient | Std. Err. | |
---|---|---|---|
Random parameters in utility functions | |||
Certified origin of wool: Italy (no Basilicata) | 0.115 | 0.048 | ** |
Certified origin of wool: Basilicata | 0.564 | 0.181 | *** |
Production area of pullover: Italy (no Basilicata) | 0.258 | 0.101 | ** |
Production area of pullover: Basilicata | 0.348 | 0.133 | ** |
Weaving technique: Traditional | 0.570 | 0.144 | *** |
Occasion of use: Work | 0.116 | 0.050 | ** |
Occasion of use: Special event | 0.757 | 0.141 | *** |
Nonrandom parameters in utility functions | |||
Price | −0.042 | 0.010 | *** |
ASC | −3.113 | 0.729 | *** |
Standard deviations of parameter distributions | |||
Certified origin of wool: Italy (no Basilicata) | 2.132 | 0.517 | *** |
Certified origin of wool: Basilicata | 1.755 | 0.331 | *** |
Production area of pullover: Italy (no Basilicata) | 4.172 | 1.059 | *** |
Production area of pullover: Basilicata | 2.290 | 0.549 | *** |
Weaving technique: Traditional | 5.283 | 0.980 | *** |
Occasion of use: Work | 3.176 | 0.773 | *** |
Occasion of use: Special event | 6.279 | 1.764 | *** |
Obs.: 3318 | |||
Log likelihood function: −5211.28 | |||
Chi-squared: 5025.36 | |||
Significance level: <0.0001 | |||
McFadden pseudo-R2: 0.3531 |
Items | Levels | WTP | C.I. 95% | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
(a) | Certified origin of wool: Italy (no Basilicata) | 2.74 | *** | 1.93 | 3.55 |
(b) | Certified origin of wool: Basilicata | 13.43 | *** | 10.55 | 16.30 |
(c) | Production area of pullover: Italy (no Basilicata) | 6.14 | *** | 4.47 | 7.82 |
(d) | Production area of pullover: Basilicata | 8.29 | *** | 5.97 | 10.60 |
(e) | Weaving technique: Traditional | 13.57 | *** | 10.94 | 16.20 |
(f) | Occasion of use: Work | 2.76 | ** | 1.91 | 3.61 |
(g) | Occasion of use: Special event | 18.02 | *** | 15.01 | 21.03 |
Traditional pullover by Gentile di Puglia wool (b+d+e+g) | 53.31 | *** | 42.49 | 64.13 |
Characteristics | Certified Origin of Wool: Italy (No Basilicata) | Certified Origin of Wool: Basilicata | Production Area of Pullover: Italy (No Basilicata) | Production Area of Pullover: Basilicata | ||||||||
Female | 0.771 | 0.346 | ** | 0.746 | 0.289 | ** | 0.829 | 0.144 | *** | 0.580 | 0.457 | |
18–30 years | 0.673 | 1.923 | 0.202 | 0.182 | 0.352 | 0.251 | 0.275 | 0.166 | ||||
51–65 years | 0.725 | 0.273 | ** | 0.484 | 0.205 | ** | 0.911 | 0.410 | ** | 0.548 | 0.220 | ** |
Sec. school-Bach. degr. | 0.341 | 0.216 | 0.251 | 0.176 | 0.495 | 0.212 | ** | 0.536 | 0.350 | |||
Secondary sector | 0.274 | 0.217 | 0.673 | 0.510 | 0.583 | 0.218 | ** | 0.114 | 0.070 | |||
Tertiary sector | 0.286 | 0.075 | *** | 0.542 | 0.130 | *** | 0.668 | 0.270 | ** | 0.265 | 0.061 | *** |
>30,000 € | 0.572 | 0.381 | 0.855 | 0.515 | 0.502 | 0.155 | *** | 0.639 | 0.246 | ** | ||
Loc. mark./Shopp. center/Mall | −0.683 | 0.256 | ** | −0.734 | 0.195 | *** | −0.310 | 0.124 | ** | −0.215 | 0.078 | ** |
Weaving Technique: traditional | Occasion of Use: Work | Occasion of Use: Special Event | Price | |||||||||
Female | 0.475 | 0.070 | *** | −0.371 | 0.275 | 0.661 | 0.181 | *** | 0.685 | 0.247 | ** | |
18–30 years | −0.816 | 0.850 | 0.428 | 0.404 | 0.261 | 0.168 | 0.472 | 0.306 | ||||
51–65 years | 0.495 | 0.095 | *** | 0.515 | 0.157 | *** | 0.575 | 0.107 | *** | 0.639 | 0.137 | *** |
Sec. school-Bach. degr. | 0.163 | 0.098 | 0.208 | 0.136 | 0.173 | 0.149 | 0.811 | 0.567 | ||||
Secondary sector | 0.287 | 0.121 | ** | 0.162 | 0.060 | ** | 0.202 | 0.155 | 0.607 | 0.690 | ||
Tertiary sector | 0.925 | 0.201 | *** | 0.411 | 0.170 | ** | 0.429 | 0.158 | ** | 0.892 | 0.192 | *** |
>30,000 € | 1.701 | 0.322 | *** | 0.269 | 0.198 | 0.527 | 0.208 | ** | 1.330 | 0.251 | *** | |
Loc. mark./Shopp. center/Mall | −0.944 | 0.169 | *** | 0.167 | 0.097 | −0.326 | 0.091 | *** | −1.507 | 0.320 | *** |
Year | M = 21,393; p = 0.195; q = 0.805 | M = 21,393; p = 0.279; q = 0.721 | M = 21,393; p = 0.363; q = 0.637 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
t | Sales Forecast. (n) | Cum. Sales Forecast. (n) | Sales Forecast. (%) | Cum. Sales Forecast. (%) | Sales Forecast. (n) | Cum. Sales Forecast. (n) | Sales Forecast. (%) | Cum. Sales Forecast. (%) | Sales Forecast. (n) | Cum. Sales Forecast. (n) | Sales Forecast. (%) | Cum. Sales Forecast. (%) |
1 | 4172 | 4172 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 5969 | 5969 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 7766 | 7766 | 0.36 | 0.36 |
2 | 6061 | 10,233 | 0.28 | 0.48 | 7406 | 13,375 | 0.35 | 0.63 | 8098 | 15,863 | 0.38 | 0.74 |
3 | 6473 | 16,707 | 0.30 | 0.78 | 5851 | 19,226 | 0.27 | 0.90 | 4619 | 20,483 | 0.22 | 0.96 |
4 | 3860 | 20,567 | 0.18 | 0.96 | 2009 | 21,235 | 0.09 | 0.99 | 886 | 21,368 | 0.04 | 1.00 |
5 | 801 | 21,367 | 0.04 | 1.00 | 157 | 21,392 | 0.01 | 1.00 | 25 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
6 | 26 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 1 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
7 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
8 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
9 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
10 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 21,393 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sardaro, R.; La Sala, P. New Value to Wool: Innovative Garments for Preservation of Sheep Landraces in Italy. Animals 2021, 11, 731. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030731
Sardaro R, La Sala P. New Value to Wool: Innovative Garments for Preservation of Sheep Landraces in Italy. Animals. 2021; 11(3):731. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030731
Chicago/Turabian StyleSardaro, Ruggiero, and Piermichele La Sala. 2021. "New Value to Wool: Innovative Garments for Preservation of Sheep Landraces in Italy" Animals 11, no. 3: 731. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030731
APA StyleSardaro, R., & La Sala, P. (2021). New Value to Wool: Innovative Garments for Preservation of Sheep Landraces in Italy. Animals, 11(3), 731. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030731