Sustainability of Hard Apple Cider _ An Environmental and Socio

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 8

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

HARD APPLE CIDER IN THE UNITED STATES

Hard apple cider is a newly-emerging niche portion of the craft beverage industry in the

United States (US). While not highly publicized, hard apple cider holds a deep-rooted history in

this country, particularly in the Northeast; the first English settlers began cultivating apple

orchards in the mid-1600s, early on in the colonization of this region. While many of the native

apple trees produced inedible crabapples, transplanted saplings from England took well to the

region’s soil, making hard apple cider the beverage of choice early on in American history

(LeHault, 2011; Cook, 2018). With population, colonization, and agricultural growth, the New

England area is estimated to have produced over 300,000 gallons of cider per year by the turn of

the 18th century (LeHault, 2011). During this time, considered by many historians the “golden

age” of pomology, there were nearly 14,000 apple varieties being produced in the US (Ragan,

1905), an astonishing amount which perhaps can explain the cultural link between America and

apples. However, near the peak of the industry, this trend began to turn. With the expanding and

diversifying population, beer became the beverage of choice for new Americans. Further, the

emergence of town markets and improved road systems allowed for the reliable transportation of

wagons with heavy loads, which changed the small colonies’ reliance on local farmers for their

food and beverage needs (LeHault, 2011; Torres & Momsen, 2011). Farms towards the West

were capable of growing mass amounts of grain, necessary for beer production, with their

expansive cropland and at a much quicker pace and more affordably than was possible for fruit

trees. Affordability and access aside, the diversifying population had an existing palate (and

brewing knowledge) for beer, and the demand for hard apple cider steadily decreased. German

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 9

brew masters brought their perfected recipes for lagers and pilsners to cater to the German

immigrant population, expanding their customer base and changing the palates of the cider-

drinking English and Irish immigrants (Miller, 1999).

In addition to decreased demand, the hard cider industry was further threatened by the

National Prohibition Act of 1920, which introduced Prohibition to the US with the goal of

prohibiting the production, sale, and transport of intoxicating beverages. This Act instantly

changed the face of apple agriculture; in order to stay profitable farmers changed their crop from

the cider-producing bitter varieties to dessert varieties of apples, displacing many of the apple

tree varieties renowned for quality hard apple cider (Cook, 2018). Mass merchandising also

became opportunistic for orchards, allowing them to transport fruit across the country with

relative ease and to do so year-round with improving refrigeration and storage systems (Torres &

Momsen, 2011; Cook, 2018). The market, both influenced by law and consumer demand, had

changed this “golden age” to a more commercial one. Compared to the astounding 14,000

varieties seen in the late 1800s, today we see less than 100 varieties of commercially grown

apples in the US (Ragan, 1905; US Apple Association, 2019). While Prohibition ended in 1933,

the cider industry never recovered to its former glory, as the face of the alcoholic beverage

industry had shifted significantly. Beer persisted as the beverage of choice for many, due to both

accessibility and taste preferences of the growing population. Barley, a key ingredient for beer,

never halted agricultural production as it holds multiple uses for consumers; cider apple trees,

however, often take a minimum of three years to fruit, and can take up to five to reach their full

potential for fruit production (Cook, 2018). Many of the heirloom apple varieties originally

transplanted from England vanished from the agricultural scene (Cook, 2018; Brown &

Bradshaw, 2013). In recovering from the Great Depression, orchardists could not afford to take a

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 10

3-year loss in hopes of rebuilding the hard apple cider industry, thus contributing to the downfall

of American cider (Cook, 2018; Brown & Bradshaw, 2013).

While there have been some hard apple cider sales in the US previously, this product began a

nationwide revival in 2012, when Boston Beer Company launched Angry Orchard, making hard

apple cider once again a familiar product on the market (Brown & Bradshaw, 2013; LeHault,

2011). This re-introduction of hard apple cider to the American palate has helped to build a

consumer base for cider once again. Since then, US cider sales have risen, with recent trends

revealing a higher growth rate in craft ciders versus brands owned by larger corporations (Cook,

2018; US Apple Association, 2019). The global cider market was valued at $10.7 billion in 2016,

and is projected to reach over $16.3 billion by 2023, growing at a compound annual growth rate

(CAGR) of 6.1% (Global Cider Market, 2018). This growth is more pronounced in North

America, with an expected CAGR of 10.6% in this time period (Global Cider Market, 2018).

The alcoholic beverage industry encompasses a wide range of products, including fermented

and distilled beverages such as beer, wine, and spirits, among others. The hard apple cider

industry is the smallest, but fastest growing portion of this industry; and like all other products in

this industry, cider is largely dominated by larger corporations (Rogerson, 2016; Bernot &

Fowel, 2016). Throughout the US, however, regional/local ciders have seen growth in sales

ranging from 15-35%, showing that the pathway for regionalized cider varieties has been

established and is expected to continue expansion (The Neilson Company, 2018). While it is

difficult to tell whether consumer preferences for commercially made cider are driven by taste or

accessibility, many of these larger corporations rely on what would typically be considered

dessert-variety apples, producing a sweeter product with considerably less character than

traditionally made hard apple cider (Cook, 2018). As comparable to large agribusiness, these

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 11

beverage corporations are able to turn a profit from their product. This larger-scale

commercialization of hard apple cider has, to some extent, opened an opportunity for more

traditionally-made products from cider-variety apples (Brown & Bradshaw, 2018; Cook, 2018).

While this may not be an economically viable option for larger corporations, it provides an

entryway for private orchardists to reinvent the American orchard scene and look towards the

countries’ rich history in pomology.

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN MODERN-DAY AGRIBUSINESS

The United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2018) estimated that 9.9%

of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions stemmed from the agricultural sector, the equivalent

of 666.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). While the majority of these emissions are

due to industrial agriculture, most notably from livestock production, farms of all scales must

consider the implications of their management practices. Agricultural pollution has many

different sources with varying toxicological effects; for example, fertilizers and pesticides can

produce potent greenhouse gases and pollutant runoff which can contaminate air, water, and soil

in addition to residing directly on consumable goods (Oosterveer & Sonnenfeld, 2011). In order

to provide enough food and supplies for the growing population, the nature of industrialized

agriculture relies on monoculture which allow for greater scale in operation; however,

monoculture farms are not self-sustaining, and are totally dependent on external energy sources

(Oosterveer & Sonnenfeld, 2011). This increased reliance on management intervention can lead

to significant degradation of soil quality and fertility, which is counterproductive as soil is the

basis of agriculture. The impacts of resource consumption, such as energy and water

requirements, can create significant problems throughout their lifecycle, particularly when

compounded by issues such as climate change and water scarcity. These system inputs can have

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 12

both direct and indirect effects on the environment, thus impacting environmental quality which

characteristics therein effect the health and wellbeing of ecosystems and human beings.

In a response to globalization, a food system localization movement has begun to shape the

way many people value and choose consumable goods. While globalization increases access to

diverse, new, and otherwise unavailable goods, it can also lead to undesirable industrialization

and homogenization of the food system. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2020)

defines sustainable agricultural practices as those which are made with intent to “protect the

environment, expand the Earth’s natural resources base, and maintain and improve soil fertility.”

Localization of a food system can help to frame sustainable agriculture and food by encouraging

producers to incorporate practices that avoid environmental degradation, support

agrobiodiversity, empower employees and local community networks, and support economic

growth throughout the local region (Hinrichs, 2003; Andree, 2014). Food system localization

inherently supports biodiversity, which is a primary indicator of a healthy ecosystem, through the

generation and integration of self-sufficient ecosystems. Instead of relying on resource-intensive

intervention, localized food systems often depend on human labor leading to lower production of

greenhouse gases associated with chemicals, fossil fuels, and energy-intensive technologies

(Andree, 2014).

Localized food systems also allow for a number of societal benefits. With globalized food

systems, consumable goods become purely functional and we begin to lose value in our food

choices such as nutritional quality, cultural significance, and supporting sustainable agricultural

practices (Oosterveer & Sonnenfeld, 2011; Andree, 2014; McCullough, 2008). Localization

allows the opportunity to shift this concern, allowing consumers and producers to place value in

locally grown/created consumable goods, leading to the development of a distinct regional

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 13

identity based on those exclusive, desirable products (Hinrichs, 2003; Andree, 2014). This

movement can lead to the de-commodification of consumable goods, and support specialization

of high-value grown and crafted goods (Andree, 2014; McCullough, 2008).

Developing a market for specialty agro-food products can be particularly meaningful for

rural development and recognition (Lin & Mao, 2015; Ozcelik, 2016; Speilmann et al., in press).

These newly developed markets can assist in reviving and supporting traditional cuisine; for

example, the Slow Food movement, which originated in Italy, promotes and protects local and

traditional cooking and has spread internationally (Leitch, 2003; Slow Food, 2015). As people

are searching for a deeper connection to the environment and a region, the demand for traditional

consumable goods with cultural and historical significance continues to increase (Cerutti, 2013).

Localization of food systems allows for the market to develop in such a way that creates

economic viability for craftsmen to spend the time necessary to develop these consumable goods

without fear of financial loss (Hinrichs, 2003; Cacciolatti et al., 2015). This regional economic

growth can be done in agricultural areas and the peripheral rural regions through specialty

product marketing and tourism. By insisting on high-quality products with integrity, regions may

create an elite level of localism, making visiting and supporting the area attractive to tourists

interested in experiencing a deeper connection with a unique culture and the environment (Cheng

& Wu, 2014; Oosterveer & Sonnenfeld, 2011). When a connection with the environment

becomes a priority for individuals, sustainable agricultural and production practices are

supported. Sustainable practices such as agrobiodiversity have become increasingly supported by

tourists and regional place-building. When a region is being celebrated for the things that make it

unique and desirable, other aspects of sustainability become increasingly important. For

example, localization of food systems encourages supporting biodiversity in an agricultural

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 14

setting because it makes those systems independent from outside sources, making the elite aspect

of visiting those regions and consuming their products heightened (Sims, 2009; Oosterveer &

Sonnenfeld, 2011).

The industrialization of agriculture has led to a disconnect between consumers and

producers, and the associated issues between food and the environment have been overlooked

and ignored, leading to a number of challenges such as agricultural landscape depletion, loss of

biodiversity, and degraded ecosystems and environmental quality (McCullough, 2008;

Oosterveer & Sonnenfeld, 2011). For something as intimately essential as food is to human

quality of life to have undergone this disconnection for so long makes it very challenging to

build the necessary infrastructure for a paradigm shift that would support the consumer-producer

relationship, and build a strong market for sustainable agriculture and environmentally-conscious

consumers (Oosterveer & Sonnenfeld, 2011).

Improved accessibility and availability of fresh produce has allowed the general population

to rely heavily on corporate agribusiness, making the small American farm less of a necessity

and more of a novelty. Between globalization and improvements in shipping and storage

methods, orchardists have begun to seek other means of profitability (Cook, 2018). While still

mostly relying on dessert apple varieties, orchardists are beginning to turn back to hard apple

cider as a means of increased profitability (Cook, 2018; Wilson. 2019). One major benefit of

producing cider is that it can capitalize on using dropped, blemished, imperfect fruits.

Nonalcoholic sweet cider profit values roughly $9/bushel versus hard cider profit valuing about

$135/bushel (US Apple Association, 2019). This missed market opportunity has been noticed by

some, and has begun to revitalize the hard apple cider industry. Mass merchandisers view apples

in terms of aesthetic value, shelf life, and disease resistance rather than the former celebratory

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 15

values of variety and uniqueness. While these changes in agricultural industry ideals may have

led to a disconnect between land, fruit, and the consumer, there has been some change led by

consumer demand that has increased the value of local, artisanal goods (i.e. the locavore

movement). The increasing popularity of high-value artisan products can be seen in the more

popular craft brewing industry, which in a way has allowed a path for hard apple cideries to enter

the craft beverage market. In addition, the craft beverage industry has created a huge tourist

following, and many farms have begun to expand their operations to include some form of

agritourism (Cook, 2018; Wilson, 2019). Producing cider allows for another agritourism

opportunity, unique from beer or wine, allowing orchardists to increase profitability for all edible

products. The production of heritage high-value products like cider provides economic benefits

and cultural sustainability to the local, rural communities in which the producers reside (Wilson,

2019). While this trend opens an exciting opportunity to reinvigorate small American orchards

and improve rural, agricultural economies, this growth could also lead to the industry growing

beyond its means, creating a strain on the environment.

Agricultural sustainability is a fundamental requirement for environmental conservation,

food production, and food security. In order to achieve agricultural sustainability, it is essential

that policies are put in place that support sustainable practices and that agricultural institutions

are provided access to the necessary knowledge and technology in order to avoid eroding

biodiversity and environmental quality as well as prepare for the inevitable challenges of climate

change and geographic difficulties (Lankosi & Thiem, 2020). In an increasingly globalized food

system, sustainable agriculture faces challenges in being financially competitive in even its local

market. Policies that support the development of localized food systems can support consumer

valuation on the relationship between themselves, the producer, and the product (Selfa & Qazi,

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 16

2005; Heron & Roche, 2018; Papaoikonomou & Ginieis, 2017). For most agricultural producers,

it would be more realistic from an economic standpoint to not be fully localized, but rather

distribute in local networks and distribute through larger supply-chains beyond regional

networks (Heron & Roche, 2018). Even when distributing outside of the local network,

agricultural sustainability can be achieved when internal and external policies align to support

the needs of the industry as well as the demands of the consumer.

By acknowledging these inherent challenges with the foundation of cider in the face of a

growing demand for high-quality American cider, orchardists and policy developers alike should

aim to identify sustainable solutions. As opportunity awaits small businesses to grow, sustainable

decisions must be market-driven in order for those industries to be profitable (Lankoski &

Thiem, 2020). By identifying where the market lies for sustainably produced products, we aim to

guide cider producers and policy developers alike. While hard apple cider may be a relatively

small sector within the larger craft beverage industry, it provides a unique opportunity for private

orchardists. High-value artisan products have been shown as a means towards improved

intergenerational transitioning of land and revitalization of rural economies, two key challenges

private farms face in today’s economy (Pensieroso & Sommacal, 2019). Localized food systems

make a case for themselves as proving more sustainable than commercial/globalized ones; by

supporting their proliferation, improved local outcomes through measured sustainability metrics

are possible. By investigating hard apple cider production as a potential path for orchardists, we

hope to improve orchardists’ livelihood as well as reconnect alcoholic beverage consumers to

land and locality.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 17

STUDY AREA

This study explores the northeastern region of the US (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

and Vermont), and focuses specifically on the Mid-Atlantic states (New York, New Jersey, and

Pennsylvania) as a case study to better understand the environmental and economic impact of

orchard management and hard apple cider production for the country (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1. RESEARCH STUDY AREA

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 18

The US Northeast represents the densest apple-growing region in the country (Figure 2),

indicating a strong apple growers’ economy (Table 1), and is largest and fastest-growing hard

apple cider economy in the country (The Neilson Company, 2018).

FIGURE 2. TOTAL ACRES OF APPLES, AS PERCENT OF LAND IN ORCHARDS

(2017) US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. AG CENSUS WEB MAPS.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 19

TABLE 1. US NORTHEASTERN STATES APPLE ORCHARD STATISTICS

State

Abr.

Apple-bearing

Acres

Apple-bearing

Density (%)

Price per

Pound ($)

Hard Apple

Cider Producers

Connecticut

1,800 b

0.05

0.679 a

Delaware

Maine

2,700 b

0.01

0.439 a

Maryland

1,800 b

0.02

0.193 a

Massachusetts

3,300 b

0.05

0.382 a

New Hampshire

1,300 b

0.02

0.638 b

New Jersey

2,200 b

0.04

0.943 a

New York

44,000 a

0.13

0.269 a

Pennsylvania

19,500 a

0.07

0.223 a

Rhode Island

230 b

0.03

0.831 b

Vermont

2,100 b

0.03

0.742 a

United States

293,700 a

0.01

0.321 a

749

(a) US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Noncitrus Fruits and

Nuts 2019 Summary; (b) US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,

Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2017 Summary; (c) Cider Guide. US Cider Map. Retrieved from

https://www.ciderguide.com/cider-maps/united-states/; ND = No Data

From 2017-2018, hard apple cider sales in the northeast were estimated to have increased by

12%; while this upward trend is seen throughout the United States, this region is growing at a

rate 3-5% higher than the remainder of the country. While commercial brands still hold the

majority of total sales, regional/local cider holds 27% of the market share in the northeast, and

has a 15% growth over this same time period (The Neilson Company, 2018). In addition to

volume of sales increase, the price of regional/local cider brands have had success in charging a

premium as compared to alternate alcoholic beverage options (The Neilson Company, 2018).

While hard apple cider on average is close to the same price as craft beer, regional/local ciders

charge an approximately 30% premium in comparison to craft beers. While the cost to produce

hard apple cider is generally more expensive than that of beer, this ability to charge a premium

shows that the product is being highly valued compared to its indirect competitors (Cook, 2018;

Global Cider Market, 2018) . The US Northeast also represents the country’s greatest population

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 20

density at 345.5 people/mi2, with the Mid-Atlantic states representing an even higher density at

416.5 people/mi2. Despite this apparent opportunity, the industry’s producer-consumer

relationship has not been adequately explored. While industry growth is apparent, there has not

been sufficient research in this area to determine whether hard apple cider is a sustainable

contribution to the food and beverage industry nor to the region’s apple-growing community.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The overarching goal of this dissertation is to analyze the environmental and socioeconomic

opportunities and challenges surrounding apple orchard and hard apple cider production

management in the Northeastern US. This research addresses four closely linked objectives, and

will focus on answer the following research questions:

• What influences farmers’ apple orchard current management practices and their

willingness to adopt sustainable practices?

• What sustainability attributes are considered valuable to hard apple cider consumers, and

how much are they willing to pay for these added qualities?

• What is the environmental and economic impact of the hard apple cider production system

over the course of its lifetime?

• What is the environmental and economic risk of hard apple cider production, and what are

the best adaptation and mitigation strategies to address that risk?

Specifically, the research objectives are to:

1. Identify the relationship between farmers’ values, beliefs, and norms and their likelihood

to utilize sustainable apple orchard management practices.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 21

2. Identify a hierarchal relationship amongst sustainability attributes for hard apple cider,

and the added value associated with those benefits.

3. Quantify the emissions and environmental impacts associated with hard apple cider

production, and assess the lifetime socio-economic costs.

4. Assess the environmental and economic uncertainties of hard apple cider production, and

identify management strategies to address the associated risks.

In Chapter 1, we explore apple orchard owner/managers’ perceptions towards the

environment, and how those perceptions shape their current management practices as well as

their willingness to adopt sustainable management practices in the future. We developed an

online questionnaire utilizing the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theory, which provides a

framework for understanding behavioral action and inaction in the context of environmentalism,

and collected responses from 65 orchardists in the US Northeast. Through the use of principal

components analysis, we reduced the 27 VBN variables to 8 key components which were used to

further explore respondent’s relationship with sustainable management using multiple regression

models. We analyze the relationship between the 8 VBN components, current management

practices, and willingness to adopt sustainable management practices to estimate the level of

influence environmental preconceptions have over sustainable apple orchard management.

Further, we explore the key motivators and inhibitors that influence current and potential hard

apple cider producers. This study provides important information which can be utilized to guide

supporting community networks and policy framework to support sustainable orchard

management practices and the rural economy in the northeast.

In Chapter 2, we explore how hard apple cider consumers value different aspects of

‘sustainability’, and whether they are willing to pay a premium price for those attributes in the

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 22

hard apple cider they consume. We developed an online questionnaire and collected 630

responses from hard apple cider consumer residents of New York, New Jersey, and

Pennsylvania. We utilized an integrated best-worst-choice (BWC) model, which is a two-tiered

analytic approach which combines best-worst scaling (BWS) and discrete choice experiment

(DCE) methods to explore BWS estimations and willingness to pay (WTP) through an additional

choice task. Through BWS, we are able to generate a hierarchal scaling of attributes related to

sustainable management used in the hard apple cider production industry; through DCE we are

able to estimate the premium that hard apple cider consumers are WTP for the inclusion of those

sustainable attributes. This study provides valuable information which helps us to better

understand how stated preference may lead to actual behavior in terms of purchasing decisions.

This study offers insight into consumer behavior, which is useful in supporting orchardists’

sustainable management practices, as well as provides data which can be used to support

sustainable agricultural policy advocacy and development.

In Chapter 3, we analyze the environmental and economic impact of the hard apple cider

production system and explore management scenarios to determine ecological and financial

feasibility. We developed an integrated life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC)

assessment model to assess the lifetime environmental impact by measuring the emissions

associated with each stage of the food production process, and to inform the environmental costs

measures in addition to traditional costing analyses. The LCA model was used to quantify

emissions measures (including agricultural, production, packaging, distribution, and end-of-life

stages) as broader mid- and long-term sustainability impacts ranging from global warming to

natural resource scarcity. The LCC model addressed capital expenditure, fixed annual costs,

variable costs, and environmental costs (carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides) and calculated the

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 23

net present value of the operation over a 30-year lifetime, as well as the average cost to produce

a single serving of hard apple cider. Our LCA-LCC model was further applied to various

packaging and distribution scenarios, which can be used to inform producers’ decision-making

and to provide contextual support to encourage sustainable management practices.

In Chapter 4, we identify the environmental and economic risks associated with hard apple

cider production in order to support adaptation and mitigation risk management strategies. Risk

assessment (RA) provides a framework for interpreting risk data, informing the necessary

precautions needed to avoid that risk, and supporting risk management strategies to reduce risk

amidst a business model. We apply Monte Carlo simulation to our LCA and LCC models, which

allows us to measure uncertainty in the data which can be translated to risk. The LCA-RA model

allowed us to indicate the key environmental impact metrics which had greater data uncertainty,

supporting the need for further source testing for contaminants of concern. The LCC-RA model

allowed us to explore uncertainty in long-term cost data, such as the variability in annual costs,

revenue, and growth rate over a 30-year lifetime at a net present value based on various

discounting rates. This study provides useful data for informing adaptation and mitigation risk

management strategies for apple orchardists and provides support for the value of regular

environmental testing and dynamic management in the face of uncertainty.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 24

CHAPTER 1. MOTIVATIONS OF FARMER’S MANAGEMENT

DECISIONS AND WILLINGNESS TO ADOPT SUSTAINABLE

PRACTICES

ABSTRACT: Agriculture has a significant impact on environmental health and quality, and

management decisions made throughout the food supply chain holds a great deal of influence on

those direct and indirect effects. Despite farmers’ role in this, the influences which shape their

management decisions are not well understood. In this study, we survey 65 apple orchard

owners/managers in the northeastern US in an attempt to explore how orchardists’ current

management practices and willingness to implement new, sustainable management practices are

influenced by their personal values, beliefs, and social norms. We found that values are most

influential in motivating current sustainable management practices, while beliefs hold the largest

level of influence over willingness to adopt new sustainable management practices. We also

explored the key influencers and inhibitors behind current and potential hard apple cider

production and found that while consumer demand and potential for increased profitability

provided the largest draw, concerns regarding alcohol sale and distribution laws were seen as a

key detractor. These findings help us understand how community and policy can help build upon

orchardists’ pre-existing values in order to better assist sustainable orchard management. This

support could help avoid further environmental detriment, while backing rural development and

regional growth through apple and hard apple cider sales.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 25

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. BACKGROUND

Agriculture and the US food system are widely recognized as having direct and indirect

effects on the environment, the degree of which is based on a number of factors related to

management decisions throughout the supply chain (Harrison & Hester, 2012). The

industrialization of agriculture has exaggerated these detrimental effects, including

agricultural landscape depletion, loss of biodiversity, degraded ecosystems and

environmental quality (Harrison & Hester, 2012). While production has increased

significantly, the current system leads to unintended environmental consequences related to

emissions and environmental contaminants. This transition, however, is subject to several

challenges, most notably the adoption of behavioral changes associated with sustainable

management (Price & Leviston, 2014; Wang et al., 2019; Wensing et al., 2018). The role of

farmers extends beyond their provision of food; their distinct perception on pro-

environmental behaviors and management decisions which impact the environment play a

key role in fostering a sustainable bioeconomy, which encompasses parts of the economy

which use renewable biological resources to produce food, materials, and energy (Wensing et

al., 2019). Despite their critical role in this system, the factors which shape farmers’ beliefs

and motivations that influence their management decisions are not well understood (Wensing

et al., 2019).

In general, fruit trees have a relatively low environmental impact when compared to other

sectors of agriculture, like ground crops and livestock. However, apple production,

particularly in the Northeast where there are added climate-related challenges, often requires

substantial usage of pesticides, fertilizers, and other resources which yield negative impacts

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 26

on the environment. However, orchards also have many positive effects, including carbon

fixation, oxygen production, and nutrient cycling (Demestihas et al., 2017). When sustainable

management decisions are made, these benefits can be exemplified while the detriments are

negated. The US is the second largest apple producer in the world, with the northeastern

states hosting the second largest commercial cultivation area of nearly 78 thousand acres,

producing approximately 20% of the country’s apples (United States Department of

Agriculture, 2020). However, despite the Northeast’s prominence, there are some inherent

geographical challenges with apple production in this region, such as greater weather

variability and climatic uncertainty which can affect crop yield and quality (Sayre, 2004).

This uncertainty causes challenges in making timely pest and disease management decisions,

which then leads to greater variability in achieving sustainably managed apple orchards.

The apple industry has recently seen a rise in value-added opportunity through expanding

hard (alcoholic) apple cider marketing. Hard apple cider presents an opportunity in utilizing

blemished, dropped, or otherwise imperfect fruits to produce a product which offers a

significantly higher profit margin than fresh produce. The Northeast has also been recognized

as the fastest growing cider economy in the country, with 12% sales growth from 2017 to

2018 (The Nielsen Company, 2018). The Northeastern states represent an opportunity for

regional distribution network systems which could capitalize on current agricultural

production and existing infrastructure among the most population dense region in the

country. Determining orchardists’ interest in joining the hard apple cider movement could

help create greater support through policy improvements and regional network development,

aiding in building a sustainable bioeconomy even further. To better understand the future of

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 27

any market, it is critical to explore the perspectives of both the consumer and the producer –

both of which can be done through survey-based research.

One key challenge in survey-based research is participation, particularly when the

population of interest is that of a relatively small proportion of a larger community. Farm and

ranch families comprise a mere 1.3% of the US population, and while apples are the most

consumed fruit in the country, they only account for about 25% of tree fruit production

(United States Department of Agriculture, 2018). This small subset of potential survey

participants, in addition to inherent challenges with surveys (where a typical survey response

rate ranges from 5-30%) often leads to a low sample population. In light of these challenges,

we attempt to better understand farmers managing apple orchards in the US Northeast. This

study aims to understand the motivations guiding farmers’ orchard management practices in

this region, and how those motivations may influence pro-environmental behaviors. To

achieve this, we use the Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) theoretical framework to predict

behaviors through understanding the key influencers leading to behaviors and willingness to

adopt sustainable practices (Wensing et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020). Through this, we hope

to identify how policies might be able to better support sustainable practices and to provide

agricultural institutions improved access to the necessary knowledge and technology in order

to avoid eroding environmental quality as well as prepare for the inevitable challenges of

climate change (Bopp et al., 2019).

1.2. VALUE-BELIEF-NORM FRAMEWORK

Multiple frameworks have been developed in order to link one’s beliefs and behaviors,

including the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980), theory of planned behavior

(Ajzen, 1985), and the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory (Stern et al., 1999). The VBN theory

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 28

is an attitude-behavioral theoretical framework, originally developed by Stern et al. (1999) to

predict environmental conservation action, that uses ethical reasoning rather than rational

reasoning as a focus to predict behavior (Figure 1. 1). Value-based motivations include those

which are egoistic (self-serving), altruistic (for the benefit of other humans), and biospheric

(for the benefit of other species). Belief-based motivations are those which acknowledge the

new ecological paradigm, such that there is an awareness that human activities can adversely

affect the environment and the associated ascription of personal responsibility. Norm-based

motivations include a sense of obligation due to personal, social, and cultural customs. These

different motivations have shown direct causal effects on each other, as well as behavioral

actions or inactions.

FIGURE 1. 1. VALUE-BELIEF-NORM THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The VBN framework has proven particularly successful in predicting behaviors of non-

activist environmentalism and has shown success in predicting farmer behaviors in the scope

of environmental related mitigation and adaptation strategies. Wengsing et al. (2019) used

the VBN framework to evaluate vegetable farmers’ ecological views as a predictor for their

interest in the valorization of horticultural by-product biomass for bioenergy generation. This

study found a positive and significant relationship between awareness of environmental

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 29

consequences, personal norms, openness to change, perceived effectiveness of and market

demand for bioenergy, and interest in fostering the bioenergy economy through supplying

biomass. Zhang et al. (2020) used both the VBN theory and the theory of planned behavior

(TPB) to examine rice growers’ willingness to adapt agricultural behaviors in the context of

climate change mitigation. They found that the VBN model had higher predictive power for

mitigation strategies, whereas TPB has stronger predictive power for adaptation strategies in

the scope of climate variability, which may be more meaningful in terms of decreasing

agriculture-related emissions.

We have built upon the VBN theory by including green-product specific questions, where

a ‘green product’ was defined as a sustainable product designed to minimize its

environmental impact, aiming to maximize resource efficiency and reduce waste. By framing

survey questions within this extended VBN theory, we hope to measure the significance of

these decision motivators to better inform how to support pro-environmental behavior

through encouraging sustainable apple orchard management practices.

2. METHOD

2.1. SURVEY DESIGN

We developed an online questionnaire (Appendix A) using Qualtrics XM survey software

for this study, prefaced by an explanation that its purpose was to explore how apple

orchardists manage their orchards and what motivates those management decisions. If

applicable, participants were also encouraged to share their views on and experience with the

hard apple cider industry. In order to participate in the survey, participants were required to

be adults (18 years or older) that owned and/or managed an apple orchard in the northeastern

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 30

US (including Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont). The first part of the

survey included socio-demographic questions, and also inquired about the participants’ land,

land-use, and participation in non-farming activities (i.e. sales types, event hosting, etc.). The

second part of the survey asked about current orchard management practices and their level

of effectiveness, followed by an inquiry on their willingness to adopt the unselected

practices. The third part of the survey was designed to measure pro-environmental behavior

based on personal values and beliefs, and social norms based on the VBN theory (Table 1. 1),

where questions were derived from a number of farmer-focused surveys (Price & Leviston,

2014; Wang et al., 2019; Wensing et al., 2018). For each question, participants were asked to

answer based on a 5-point Likert scale of ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 31

TABLE 1. 1. SURVEY QUESTIONS UNDER THE VALUE-BELIEF-NORM THEORY

Survey Question

I choose management practices because…

Value

I like to provide an equal opportunity working experience.

I like to employ those who are in need.

I like to employ friends and family.

I want to be influential and motivate other farmers.

I want to be the best in my field.

I want to earn more money.

I want to prevent pollution and conserve natural resources.

I want to respect the natural world.

I want to protect and preserve the earth and nature.

Belief

I believe that…

Humans have the right to modify their natural environment to suit their needs.

It is my responsibility to protect natural ecosystems.

Plants and animals have as much a right as humans to exist.

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.

It is my responsibility to avoid polluting the environment.

Agriculture is a main contributor to environmental issues.

Runoff from fertilizer and pesticide use is a major pollutant.

Agriculture is disruptive to natural ecosystems.

It is my responsibility to minimize my environmental impact.

Green products should cost more than conventional ones because…

They are more challenging to produce.

They are more expensive to produce.

Norm

I feel…

That I should behave in an environmentally friendly way.

An obligation to buy green products where possible (i.e. organic, local, etc.)

An obligation to protect the environment.

People I know…

Are concerned about the environment.

Think it’s important to buy green products (i.e. organic, local, etc.)

Try to behave in an environmentally friendly way.

The survey concluded with an optional series of questions inquiring about their views,

experience, and concerns regarding hard apple cider production. As the survey involved

human subjects, it was reviewed and approved by Montclair State University’s Institutional

Review Board (IRB) (study no. FY19-20-1803) before being administered.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 32

2.2. SAMPLING METHOD AND SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

A distribution email list was generated from publicly available online resources (Orange

Pippin, 2020; Cider Guide, 2020; American Cider Association, 2020) of apple orchards and

hard apple cider producers in the US Northeast. The original list included email addresses

representing three hundred thirty-eight establishments; thirty-two were removed based on

self-reported feedback (did not meet the participation criteria). The survey was administered

July-August 2020 and was sent to our final distribution list of three hundred six potential

participants. From this, we collected sixty-four complete responses, representing a 20.9%

participation rate. Survey results were numerically coded and transcribed into SPSS

statistical software for analysis. Respondents had personally owned or managed the land for a

range of 2-54 years, averaging at approximately 21 years. 45.2% had purchased the land,

37% had inherited the land, 6.5% rent or lease the land, and the remaining respondents

reported it was a family or community-owned farm or that they did not hold any ownership

over. 62.5% of participants self-reported as the primary decision maker, 28.1% as a joint

decision maker, and the remaining 9.4% had some influence in the decision-making process.

The majority of respondents identified as male (77.6%), white or Caucasian (85.7%), and

having received a high level of formal education (89.8% received a bachelor’s degree or

higher).

2.3. DATA ANALYSIS

The VBN theory was tested using principal components analysis (PCA), which helped us

confirm the validity of our model and identify the key components responsible for the

greatest variance in the data amongst the 28 factors analyzed (Denis, 2018). PCA is a method

of data reduction, which is useful in reducing a large dataset of related variables to a few

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 33

principal components. The components that are extracted are those which account for the

greatest variance in the data. The factors considered for further analysis were those with

eigenvalues above 1.0, and those which loaded above 0.4 on the communalities meeting the

Stevens requirement (Denis, 2018). The model validity was confirmed using Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity measures, where KMO return values above 0.6

are considered adequate, and Bartlett’s values indicate significance level less than 0.05

(Denis, 2018). The principal components identified were then used for creating the predictive

models, which explored the relationship between VBN factors and likelihood of currently

utilizing and willingness to implement sustainable orchard management practices.

To explore the relationship between the VBN factors and current use of sustainable

management practices, we produced a multiple linear regression model. For this model, the

VBN regression factor scores derived from the PCA were used as the independent variables.

The dependent variables were generated from the survey responses to a series of binomial

yes-no questions, where respondents were asked to select from a list which management

practices they currently partake in, 16 of which were considered ‘sustainable’. There was

also a write-in option where participants were encouraged to specify additional practices, and

share more about their views, challenges, and successes with orchard management decisions.

These write-in responses were not included in the regression models but rather were used as

qualitative data in the following section. Of the management practices that participants did

not select, participants were asked to identify how willing they were to adopt the practice in

the future based on a 5-point Likert scale from “not at all” to “very”. The scale responses

were used as our dependent variables and the regression factor scores derived from the PCA

were again used as the independent variables for the model.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 34

Finally, we explored the motivations for producing hard apple cider as well as the

perceived challenges with the industry for survey participants both currently producing

(38.8%) and those who expressed interest (24.5%) in producing hard apple cider. Due to the

smaller sample size (n=31), we restricted our analysis to descriptive statistics and used write-

in responses as qualitative data to support our discussion.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS

The principal components analysis revealed the presence of eight factors with

eigenvalues above 1.0, which explained 76.2% of the variance in the data. The Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy of 0.644 exceeded the recommended value of

0.6, and Bartlett’s tests of sphericity resulting of 916.472 with p<0.001 supported the initial

factorability of the correlation matrix (Denis, 2018). No variables loaded on multiple

components, nor did any load below 0.5 on communalities determining that no variables

needed to be removed from the factor analysis (Denis, 2018). The variables were further

tested using a varimax rotation, which revealed an optimal loading result (Table 1. 2). The

communality scores listed for each variable represents the proportion of variance explained

by the principal component; for clarity on how the variables were reduced, we only included

the communality score for the component responsible for the greatest level of variance in the

data. We gave the eight components new names which summarize the variables they each

contain: (1) Environmentalist, (2) Naturalist, (3) Agricultural, (4) Action, (5) Green Products,

(6) Leadership, (7) Self-Interest, (8) Conservationist. The factor scores for each of the eight

components were saved as regression variables for further analyses used in the following

sections of this report.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 35

TABLE 1. 2. ROTATED COMPONENT MATRIX

Component

Variable

VBN

Variance

Environmentalist

I believe that it is my responsibility to avoid polluting

the environment.

.845

I believe that it is my responsibility to protect natural

ecosystems

.773

I believe that the balance of nature is very delicate

and easily upset.

.740

I feel that I should behave in an environmentally

friendly way.

.699

I believe that it is my responsibility to minimize my

environmental impact.

.681

I feel an obligation to protect the environment.

.662

People I know are concerned about the environment.

.635

I believe that plants and animals have as much a right

as humans to exist.

.595

Naturalist

I want to respect the natural world.

.928

I want to protect and preserve the earth and nature.

.922

I want to prevent pollution and conserve natural

resources.

.802

Agricultural

I believe that agriculture is a main contributor to

environmental issues.

.838

I believe that agriculture is disruptive to natural

ecosystems.

.769

I believe that runoff from fertilizer and pesticide use

is a major pollutant.

.705

Action

People I know try to behave in an environmentally

friendly way.

.830

People I know think it’s important to buy green

products (i.e. organic, local, etc.)

.769

I feel an obligation to buy green products where

possible (i.e. organic, local, etc.)

.505

Green Products

Green products should cost more than conventional

ones because they are more challenging to produce.

.943

Green products should cost more than conventional

ones because they are more expensive to produce.

.934

Leadership

I like to provide an equal opportunity working

experience.

.701

I like to employ friends and family.

.671

I want to be influential and motivate other farmers.

.658

I like to employ those who are in need.

.587

Self-Interest

I want to be the best in my field.

.728

I want to earn more money.

.727

I believe that the earth has plenty of natural resources

if we just learn how to develop them.

.660

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 36

Conservationist

I believe that humans have the right to modify their

natural environment to suit their needs

-.880

3.2. SUSTAINABLE ORCHARD MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

We used the regression factors from the PCA to further explore the relationship between

the 8 motivation categories and the sustainable orchard management practices presented to

the survey participants. Participants were asked to indicate whether they did or did not

currently practice each of the sustainable practices listed in Table 1. 3. For each sustainable

practice, the p-value represents the correlation between it and the motivation factor.

Environmentalist motivations showed a significant relationship with practicing inter-row

plantings and regular plant tissue nutrient testing. These practices are associated with

encouraging tree health through diverting pests/disease and informing soil nutrient

management needs respectively; thus, the relationship between these preventative measures

and the Environmentalist component is not surprising. Naturalist motivations showed a

significant relationship with using active water/irrigation management and conservative

fertilization practices. While agriculture requires some level of resource manipulation, these

conservative practices require limited intervention which reflects the Naturalist component.

Green Product motivations showed a significant relationship with regular plant tissue

nutrient testing. Plant tissue nutrient testing is a valuable tool, but often requires external lab

testing which can be financially inhibitive compared to other sustainable management

practices. Leadership motivations showed a significant relationship with conservation of

native animals and plants, promoting biodiversity through habitat management, regular soil

nutrient testing, and use of organic fertilizers. This component held influence over the

greatest number of management variables, arguing that actions which are both self-serving as

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 37

well as ‘for the greater good’ are highly associated with egotistic values. Conservationist

motivations showed a significant relationship with beekeeping; while beekeeping does

require manipulation of the natural environment, there are many co-benefits associated with

the practice which go beyond self-serving ones. Agricultural, Action, and Self-Interest

motivations showed no significant relationship with any of the given management practices.

TABLE 1. 3. LINEAR REGRESSION - IMPACT OF PCA FACTORS ON CURRENT

SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Principal Components (p-value)

Dependent Variable

Inter-row plantings

.015***

.382

.411

.795

.219

.135

.328

.599

Conservation of native

animals and plants

.604

.519

.986

.758

.788

.011***

.965

.728

Planting pollinator-

attracting plants

.620

.599

.846

.273

.380

.763

.861

.930

Beekeeping

.307

.896

.260

.647

.132

.874

.953

.031**

Rainwater collection

.963

.177

.825

.298

.839

.959

.686

.433

Active water/irrigation

management

.489

.012**

.847

.362

.767

.289

.396

.635

Integrated pest

management

.148

.112

.510

.893

.988

.269

.250

.470

Promote biodiversity

through habitat

management

.187

.242

.760

.976

.799

.046**

.312

.469

Conservative fertilization

practices

.835

.064*

.476

.541

.850

.922

.484

.775

Regular soil nutrient

testing (every 1-3 years)

.244

.428

.811

.499

.493

.040**

.368

.511

Regular plant tissue

nutrient testing (every 1-3

years)

.049**

.605

.745

.653

.033**

.187

.349

.300

Planting tolerant/resistant

species and cultivars

.706

.210

.332

.355

.564

.190

.925

.922

Manual controls to reduce

pests

.415

.313

.651

.698

.718

.705

.372

.537

Use of organic pesticides

.328

.676

.703

.501

.513

.125

.412

.719

Use of organic fertilizers

.296

.461

.609

.707

.116

.082*

.654

.241

(1) Environmentalist, (2) Naturalist, (3) Agricultural, (4) Action, (5) Green Products, (6)

Leadership, (7) Self-Interest, (8) Conservationist; Significance p ≤ 0.01***, p ≤ 0.05**, p ≤ 0.1*

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 38

As a follow-up question, participants were asked to indicate their willingness to adopt

sustainable practices which they were not currently using; Table 1. 4 shows the relationship

between the motivation factors and those practices. Environmentalist motivations showed a

significant relationship with inter-row plantings, and conservation of native animals and

plants. Agricultural motivations showed a significant relationship between inter-row

plantings, native ground cover, rainwater collection, active water/irrigation management,

promote biodiversity through habitat management, regular soil and plant tissue nutrient

testing, manual controls to reduce pests, and use of organic pesticides. Action motivations

showed a significant relationship with native ground cover. Green Product motivations

showed a significant relationship with conservation of native animals and plants, planting

pollinator-attracting plants, and integrated pest management. Leadership motivations showed

a significant relationship with planting pollinator-attracting plants, integrated pest

management, and regular plant tissue nutrient testing. Self-Interest motivations showed a

significant relationship with inter-row plantings and promote biodiversity through habitat

management. Conservationist motivations showed a significant relationship with native

ground cover, planting pollinator-attracting plants, beekeeping, rainwater collection, and

promote biodiversity through habitat management. Naturalist motivations showed no

significant relationship in likelihood to implement sustainable practices.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 39

TABLE 1. 4. STANDARD LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION - IMPACT OF PCA

FACTORS ON LIKELIHOOD TO IMPLEMENT SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES

Principal Components (p-value)

Dependent

Variable

Inter-row

plantings

.040**

.576

.000***

.875

.906

.695

.094*

.157

Native ground

cover

.491

.223

.034**

.040**

.259

.681

.402

.001***

Conservation

of native

animals and

plants

.012***

.349

.224

.159

.085*

.149

.260

.869

Planting

pollinator-

attracting

plants

.165

.463

.200

.119

.021**

.071*

.451

.021**

Beekeeping

.112

.603

.549

.300

.342

.953

.434

.098*

Rainwater

collection

.863

.994

.094*

.418

.708

.116

.977

.043**

Active

water/irrigatio

n management

.748

.375

.014***

.881

.991

.361

.981

.869

Integrated pest

management

.207

.184

.375

.285

.046**

.045**

.473

.106

Promote

biodiversity

through habitat

management

.282

.134

.079*

.397

.377

.738

.001***

.009***

Conservative

fertilization

practices

.503

.653

.674

.329

.476

.447

.181

.630

Regular soil

nutrient testing

(every 1-3

years)

.112

.792

.072*

.754

.142

.126

.258

.152

Regular plant

tissue nutrient

testing (every

1-3 years)

.575

.425

.017***

.998

.292

.092*

.510

.225

Planting

tolerant/resista

nt species and

cultivars

.583

.894

.947

.409

.727

.466

.965

.645

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 40

Manual

controls to

reduce pests

.127

.115

.086*

.611

.365

.709

.694

.805

Use of organic

pesticides

.611

.770

.008***

.512

.578

.587

.141

.334

Use of organic

fertilizers

.584

.960

.644

.784

.987

.580

.494

.308

(1) Environmentalist, (2) Naturalist, (3) Agricultural, (4) Action, (5) Green Products, (6)

Leadership, (7) Self-Interest, (8) Conservationist; Significance p ≤ 0.01***, p ≤ 0.05**, p ≤ 0.1*

Many participants expressed their challenges with sustainable farming management

decisions, and their frustrations with communicating to the customer in a way that is

meaningful for both the business’s success and the customer’s values.

“Customers [expect] cheap food, and farmers have to use scale of production to meet

those needs [leading them to] cut prices where they can. The [globalization] of the food

chain has led to the end of the family farm, and will soon lead to more food insecurity.”

The producer-consumer gap is not a new phenomenon, but has been exacerbated based on

the greater disconnect between land and society. This disconnect exists not only due to

limited interaction between the producer and consumer, but also with the propagation of

misinformation through multiple conflicting sources.

“Sustainable farming works together with its natural environment… measured use of both

organic and synthetic inputs can be a part of a sustainable farm system where everything is

able to succeed: the natural world, the business, and the people being fed from that land.”

This poor communication not only affects the consumer, but also leads to confusion and

disagreement within the farming community.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 41

“The wide variation in greener agricultural practices makes it hard to figure out what will

and what won’t work. [SARE-type projects] should produce information that encapsulates a

start-to-finish model to adopting such practices effectively and profitably.”

Despite these challenges, most participants expressed a genuine concern for the environment,

and took great consideration in how their practices may impact their environment, business,

and community.

“I am just trying to do right by the earth and practice a do not harm philosophy.”

3.3. GREEN AND PREMIUM PRODUCTS

We also used the regression factors from the PCA to further explore the relationship

between the 8 motivation components and participants’ willingness to produce green and

premium-priced products. Participants were asked to indicate their willingness based on a 5-

point Likert scale from ‘not at all’ to ‘very’ as seen in Table 1. 5. Willingness to produce a

green product regardless of the sales price showed a relationship with Agricultural, Action,

Green Products, Leadership, and Conservationist motivations. Willingness to produce a

green product if they could charge a premium price showed a relationship with Naturalist,

Agricultural, Action, and Green Products motivations. The high association with

environmental-based values, beliefs, and norm related motivations supports our findings that

the participants have a high regard for environmental well-being. While they are running a

business, profitability is not their key motivation guiding their management practices.

Willingness to incur more costs in order to produce a green, premium-priced product showed

a relationship with Naturalist, Agricultural, and Leadership motivations. Willingness to

commit more time and effort in order to produce a green, premium-priced product showed a

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 42

relationship with Naturalist and Agricultural motivations. A key distinction between these

variables, is perhaps that as Leadership motivations are to an extent more self-serving than

other motivations there is an understanding that,

“…it takes money to make money.”

Environmentalist and Self-Interest motivations showed no relationship with any of the

dependent variables explored in this model.

TABLE 1. 5. LINEAR REGRESSION - IMPACT OF PCA FACTORS ON LIKELIHOOD

TO PRODUCE A GREEN PRODUCT

Principal Components (p-value)

Dependent

Variable

I would be willing

to…

produce a green

product, regardless

of sales price.

.500

.266

.008***

.067*

.092*

.011***

.118

.013***

produce a green

product if I could

charge a premium

price.

.839

.007***

.000***

.005***

.029**

.001***

.286

.335

incur more costs to

produce a green,

premium-priced

product.

.846

.058**

.011***

.575

.563

.054**

.549

.323

commit more time

and effort to

produce a green,

premium-priced

product.

.281

.007***

.002***

.708

.246

.186

.533

.323

(1) Environmentalist, (2) Naturalist, (3) Agricultural, (4) Action, (5) Green Products, (6)

Leadership, (7) Self-Interest, (8) Conservationist; Significance p ≤ 0.01***, p ≤ 0.05**, p ≤ 0.1*

These findings show a largely positive relationship between farmer’s willingness to

produce a green, premium-priced product and their VBN motivations.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 43

“My wife and I hope to use our business to influence people towards having greater

respect for the environment, agriculture, product, and people so that they begin to prioritize

these [values] over profit-making.”

While not all articulated their altruistic hopes for the environment and society, there does

appear to be a strong draw towards sustainably produced goods. Despite the primarily

positive outlook on sustainable orchard management, some participants expressed

disagreement or distaste with organic farming, stating that the standards were not appropriate

for apples grown in the northeast region.

“Just because a product is labeled green or organic doesn’t necessarily mean the

propagation methods are best for the environment.”

The concern of greenwashing, or marketing items as better for the environment without being

fully upfront about the environmental impact, is not new and has been recognized by both the

producer and the consumer on many scales,

“I think organic is a scam, but I do it because it pays.”

To promote behavioral change, it is important for social and financial support to provide a

foundation to encourage best management practices,

“Like any business, farming is practiced to produce a profit and feed the population. Give

me a monetary incentive and I am a player.”

It is to the benefit of the community at large for political and educational institutions to

provide the tools in order to support farmers and encourage sustainable management

decisions.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 44

“In the northeast…organic apples are not worth growing due to practicality. However, I

believe it’s possible to take some of those methods and integrate them into a conventional

system.”

3.4. HARD APPLE CIDER: MOTIVATIONS AND CHALLENGES

Of our respondents, 38.8% indicated that they currently produced hard apple cider. Of

this group, there was a range between 2-25 years of experience producing hard apple cider, at

an average of 9.7 years. There was a wide scale of volume produced annually as well,

ranging from a reported 5-10,000 barrels per annum (1 barrel = 158.99 liters = 42 gallons).

For those that do not currently produce hard apple cider, 40% expressed an interest in making

it and 40% stated that they would sell their apples for others to produce it. Of the total survey

participants, we utilized only responses from those currently producing and from those who

expressed interest in producing hard apple cider in this segment. Participants were asked to

rank their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly

agree” on reasons that influence their decision to produce (or consider producing) hard apple

cider, and their greatest concerns when it comes to producing (or consider producing) hard

apple cider (Table 1. 6).

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 45

TABLE 1. 6. AVERAGE RESPONSES OF MOTIVATORS AND INHIBITORS FOR

PRODUCING HARD APPLE CIDER

Current

Producers

Potential

Producers

What are the reasons that influence your decision to produce (or

consider producing) hard apple cider?

Opportunity for increased profit

4.66

4.63

Consumer demand

4.58

4.32

Opportunity to profit on bruised, otherwise unsaleable apples

3.92

3.42

My children/heirs may be more inclined to stay with the farm

3.08

2.53

Bring more customers to the farm (i.e. tours, tastings)

4.08

3.47

Bring more customers to the farm through private events (i.e.

weddings)

3.67

2.63

What are your greatest concerns when it comes to producing (or

consider producing) hard apple cider?

Laws regarding sales of alcoholic beverages

3.92

4.26

Laws regarding distribution of alcoholic beverages

4.08

4.21

Initial costs of cider-production equipment

4.17

4.00

Lack of understanding on how to produce quality hard apple cider

3.67

3.00

Lack of understanding on how to market hard apple cider

3.25

3.10

While both groups placed different levels of agreement on their reasons to produce or

consider producing hard apple cider, those reasons were ranked similarly. Opportunity for

increased profit and consumer demand were by far the most important factors for engaging in

the hard apple cider industry.

“Hard cider sold through distribution is a saturated marketplace [by commercial

brands]; on-site retail is likely the best entry and long-term play for most producers.”

Some potential producers expressed that while they did not make their own hard apple cider,

they have shown success with selling their sweet cider for hard apple cider production.

“[We produce cider] which is sold to a local winery where they make hard cider. They make

a wonderful product, and I feel more comfortable with their expertise rather than trying to

produce something myself.”

This collaborative relationship was expressed from both sides,

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 46

“We are a cider producer first. We source from small to mid-sized orchards in addition to

our own,”

showcasing that the hard apple cider industry is supported by multiple business frameworks.

More contrasting were the responses between current and potential producers for greatest

concerns regarding hard apple cider production. For current producers, initial cost of cider-

production equipment was of greatest concern. While cider can be made on a small scale

from relatively low-tech, affordable equipment, it can quickly escalate when venturing into

production-scale needs. Larger-scale equipment supports needs of convenience and ease of

operation, but also ensures food safety, which is a critical component of any consumable

good. For both groups, laws regarding distribution and sales of alcoholic beverages were of

high concern. Understandably, due to lack of experience, these factors were of greater

concern for potential producers. Alcohol beverage control (ABC) laws are notoriously

difficult to follow between the use of legal jargon and high level of variation between states.

These concerns are justified, and while some states have taken measures to alleviate these

hurdles, many others have not yet acknowledged hard apple cider as a product distinct from

wine or beer.

“The NY Farm Cider license greatly facilitates this kind of operation, but the regulations

around alcohol production and marketing are quite byzantine.”

While hard apple cider is thriving in the northeast, is it important to foster its continued

development from multiple perspectives. Comprehensive laws, public education, and focused

marketing efforts are necessary, particularly when many of the key players include small

orchards in remote locations. Building the hard apple cider community can be reflective of

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 47

the craft beer and wine industries, which have substantially greater market saturation but

have still seen growth over the years.

4. CONCLUSION

This study surveyed 64 apple orchard owners and/or managers operating in the

northeastern US. By using the VBN theoretical framework, we analyzed the key motivating

factors which influenced current management practices and likelihood of adopting

sustainable management practices. Through PCA, we reduced 27 variables to 8 principal

components which explained 76.2% variance in the data. We utilized these findings to

explore the data through multiple regression analyses. We found that the relationship behind

sustainable practices and the 8 components varied depending on the nature of the

management intervention. The Leadership component showed the largest level of influence

over current management practices, providing the argument that personal values are perhaps

the most important factor. However, the Agricultural component showed the largest level of

influence over willingness to implement alternative management practices, showing that

personal beliefs are the most important factor when it comes to willingness to change. When

asked a series of questions regarding willingness to produce green and premium-priced

products, the Agricultural component again showed influence across each question. This

finding supports our belief that the orchardists surveyed show a great deal of respect for the

environment, and consider its well-being regardless of the time, effort, and money it takes to

produce a quality product.

We also explored the key motivators and inhibitors to produce or consider producing

hard apple cider among the smaller subset who had expressed interest (n=31). We found that

among both current and potential producers, potential for increased profit and consumer

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 48

demand were the highest motivating factors for entering the hard apple cider production

industry. The northeastern US has the largest, fastest growing cider economy, and is the

second largest apple producing-region in the country, so it is understandable that this industry

would be attractive to current and potential producers alike. Amongst current producers,

initial costs of cider production equipment were the greatest concern, perhaps due to the large

variability in cost depending on production scale needs. Both current and potential producers

indicated a great deal of concern regarding the laws associated with alcoholic beverage

production and distribution. ABC laws have inherent challenges and can become increasingly

complex as these laws vary state-to-state. While there appears to be great appeal to produce

hard apple cider, we can see that greater political and community support is needed to help

this industry reach its full potential.

Future research could continue to build upon this study through reaching a wider

audience. While the number of apple orchard owners/managers is limited, a larger sample

would help provide greater representation and understanding of their management

motivations. This larger sample could also help to provide important information amongst

states or sub-regions of the northeastern US, which is important in understanding

management decisions due to climate and geographic variations. Further, this research could

be extended throughout the US, and focus on other key apple-growing regions like the

Pacific Northwest and Great Lakes region to understand how apple orchardists’ approach

sustainable management decision making throughout the country.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 49

CHAPTER 2. VALUATION OF SUSTAINABLE ATTRIBUTES OF

HARD APPLE CIDER: A BEST-WORST CHOICE APPROACH

ABSTRACT: Hard apple cider is the smallest, but fastest growing sector within the alcoholic

beverage industry in the United States and opens a unique opportunity for agricultural

entrepreneurship amongst apple orchard owners of all sizes. To support sustainable industry

development, it is important to understand which attributes of ‘sustainability’ are most valued to

customers, and how those values translate to their willingness to pay a premium for sustainably

produced goods. This study surveyed 630 hard apple cider consumers residing in the US Mid-

Atlantic states. By using the best-worst choice, we presented a two-tiered method which

estimated a hierarchal relationship among sustainability attributes that affect a cider consumer’s

intention to purchase at different price points. ‘Local’ and ‘organic’ held the highest utility and

were both highly valued attributes, where consumers are willing to pay a $10.05 and $6.39

premium, respectively. Agricultural management practices ‘IPM’ and ‘supporting biodiversity

restoration’ had a positive impact on consumer perception and commanded a premium of $5.81

and $5.68 respectively. While eco-conscious packaging and using renewable energy did not

show substantial utility to the consumer, respondents were still willing to pay a premium for

these attributes. Social responsibility attribute levels showed negative utility; however, our

analysis found that consumers were still willing to pay a premium of $5.89 for charitable

donations and $7.49 for community volunteering. This analysis points to a key challenge in

consumer behavior research: the attitude-behavior gap. Effective communication of the specific

actions and inactions that take place in sustainable management practices is necessary to convey

the proper message to potential consumers. By bridging this gap, hard apple cider producers can

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 50

better position their product, convey important environmental information in the scope of

agricultural and business management, and have consumers value their products in a way that

makes the additional resources allocations to incorporate sustainability metrics prudent in terms

of enhanced product profitability.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 51

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. HARD (ALCOHOLIC) APPLE CIDER MARKET

Hard (alcoholic) apple cider is one of the fastest growing industries within the United

States’ (US) alcoholic beverage sector, with over 1.3 million barrels (approx. 42 million

gallons) produced in 2019 (Alcohol and Tax Trade Bureau, 2020). Cider sales are estimated

to have grown by 500% since 2011, with over 1000 cider producers currently at work in the

country (American Cider Association, 2020). Nationally distributed commercially made

cider brands dominate in terms of net sales, though regional/local cider sales are growing

each year (The Nielsen Company, 2018). Specifically, the US northeast has the fastest

growing cider economy in the country, with 12% sales growth from 2017 to 2018 (The

Nielsen Company, 2018). New York is the second largest apple producer in the country

(New York Apple Association, 2020), has the most cider producers in the country at 104, and

continues to expand annually (Cider Culture, 2020). Pennsylvania is the fourth largest US

apple producer (USDA Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2018 Summary, 2019), with 60 cider

producers (Cider Culture, 2020). While New Jersey ranks relatively low in terms of pounds

produced, the yield per acre is comparable to that of California, the fifth largest apple

producer, making New Jersey a relatively orchard-dense state (USDA Noncitrus Fruits and

Nuts 2018 Summary, 2019), with a mere five cider producers. These Mid-Atlantic states, a

subsection of the US northeast, represent an opportunity for localized and regional

distribution network systems which could capitalize on current agricultural production and

existing infrastructure amongst the most population dense region in the country; thus, New

York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey have been identified as key states of interest for this

study.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 52

Consumers’ growing interest in purchasing regional cider has provided opportunities for

private orchards and currently operating wineries and breweries. Cider can be made using

dropped, blemished, or imperfect fruits, which otherwise may be considered unsaleable. This

inherent benefit of using otherwise wasted produce in addition to producing fruits specific for

hard apple cider production adds a level of added sustainable value which is typically unseen

for other apple-based goods. While nonalcoholic cider or apple juice values roughly $9 per

bushel, hard cider is able to turn a profit of about $135 per bushel (US Apple Association,

2019). Recent changes in taxing alcoholic products have also made cider production more

appealing; cider is classified as a wine by US law, which is highly taxed due to its relatively

high alcohol by volume (ABV). As of September 2017, a new lower tax rate for cider under

7% ABV allows for a new opportunity with lower annual costs for active and potential cider

producers (Alcohol and Tax Trade Bureau, 2020). These financial incentives, along with

consumer demand, continue to support and grow the cider industry in the US. The US Mid-

Atlantic represents a region in the country with the largest market share of cider sales, ample

apple production volume and potential, and a supporting network for continued development

of the cider economy; thus, making it a key area of interest for this research.

While cider research is not new, few studies have been conducted surveying cider

consumers. Many studies have explored how populations value certain qualities of

consumable goods and alcoholic beverages, focusing specifically on environmental qualities

(Schaufele & Hamm, 2017; Mazzocchi et al, 2019; Sogari et al, 2016); however, studies

exploring environmental attributes of hard apple cider are missing. As with any growing

industry, it is important to consider the potential negative consequences associated with that

growth; as consumer demand grows, there can be an increased strain on the environment and

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 53

its natural resources without proper planning. The hard apple cider production system

requires agricultural inputs (i.e. pesticides, fertilizers) and production inputs (i.e. energy,

cleaning agents) which in turn have an impact on the environment. By identifying strategies

which support environmental, societal, and economic growth, we gain key insight to inform

management decisions which are truly sustainable. Incorporating sustainable management

practices can be seen as a hurdle for small business, wherein the cost of entry may seem too

high without certainty of possible future returns. To better support small businesses transition

towards sustainable management practices, it is important to understand which attributes of

sustainability are most valued by customers, and how those values translate to their

willingness to pay a premium for sustainably produced goods. In this paper, we aim to

identify sustainable qualities preferred by hard cider consumers and how those qualities are

valued in terms of likelihood to purchase. This paper reports the results of a stated preference

survey analysis of hard apple cider consumers surveyed in New Jersey, New York, and

Pennsylvania.

1.2. VALUE OF SUSTAINABLE ATTRIBUTES

Sustainability is a concept that describes the balance of social equity, environmental

quality, and economic prosperity. One of the main drivers of incorporating sustainability into

business models is consumer demand (Ehgartner, 2018). Consumers’ purchasing decisions

are not only based on how well a product satisfies their needs, but also on how a product

affects the community at large (Ehgartner, 2018). In turn, it is the responsibility of businesses

and policy-developers to assist consumers in making ethical purchasing decisions by

providing sustainably produced goods and truthful marketing of sustainable goods (Barnett,

2011). These aspects of sustainability are ideally viewed from a holistic perspective, such

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 54

that each pillar is addressed at every stage, albeit in different ways, in a business’s

management practices. There are various approaches to integrating sustainability, and many

businesses have begun to incorporate some of these practices in order to gain a competitive

advantage, amongst other motivations.

Consumer preferences for and valuation of various aspects of sustainability has been

explored extensively in previous literature with an intention to better understand how

consumer behaviors may be indicative of a circular economy. Within the scope of

consumable goods, namely food and beverages, aspects of sustainable production should be

explored among each step of the food production process. Sustainable practices amongst the

agricultural phase, ranging from official organic certification to more specific environmental

management practices (i.e. integrated pest management), have been identified as some of the

most valuable traits as viewed by consumers (Jorge et al., 2020; Sellers-Rubio, 2016; Tait et

al., 2019; Kneafsey et al., 2013; Maczzocchi et al., 2019; Stanieri et al., 2017). Many

consumer valuation studies focus on the environmental aspects of sustainability, and those

attributes which benefit ecological health seem to be the most well understood and accepted

by consumers (Mazzochi et al., 2019; Hall & Martins, 2020; Russo et al., 2019; Fiore et al.,

2017; Jorge et al., 2020). In more recent years, we have also seen a rise in the valuation of

social equity, where consumers expect a certain level of social responsibility action from the

companies/brands they choose to support (Amatulli et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2017; Parsa et al.,

2015; Xie et al., 2019). While there have been numerous studies in this field, there is no

‘general consensus’ on the value of these various sustainability attributes; consumer

preferences and purchasing intention varies greatly depending on the product itself and the

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 55

communication styles used to convey sustainability messages (Du et al., 2011; Wu, 2013;

Tait et al., 2019).

In the midst of this uncertainty between effectively communicating sustainable

management practices to consumers and determining how consumers’ value certain practices

can be challenging for business owners in determining where to best put their time and

resources. Intrinsic value and price value are separate, but inherently intertwined measures of

utility, and it is key to understand both sides of this equation when translating value to actual

market potential and consumer willingness to pay (WTP). WTP can be measured using a

number of methods, and frequently involves surveying consumers. Stated preference

experiments are one such technique for identifying preferences in absence of revealed

preference data, wherein survey participants are asked to state their preference within

hypothetical scenarios of a given product or service. This method allows the estimation of

relative importance of different aspects, the tradeoffs between said aspects, and overall

satisfaction with the product or service.

Since its development, best-worst scaling (BWS) methods have been used extensively in

literature (Finn & Louviere, 1992; Louviere & Woodworth, 1990), though the guidelines for

data analysis and interpretation are unclear as there are a number of approaches for applying

this methodology (Marley & Pihlens, 2012). Marley and Louviere (2005) summarized

multiple models through the development of the best-worst choice (BWC) approach, which

analyzes utility through the combination of two stated preference methods, best-worst scaling

(BWS) and discrete choice experiment (DCE). By applying the BWC approach, we aim to

answer key questions on sustainable management practices and how those efforts are valued

by consumers within the hard cider industry in the mid-Atlantic United States (Soto et al.,

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 56

2016; Marley & Louviere, 2005; Marley et al., 2008). Valuation of sustainability attributes

has been estimated in a number of studies featuring consumable goods; to the best of our

knowledge, this method has not yet been applied to hard apple cider.

2. METHOD

2.1. BEST-WORST CHOICE AND SELECTION OF ATTRIBUTES

Best-worst choice (BWC) is a two-tiered analytic approach which combines best-worst

scaling (BWS) and discrete choice experiment (DCE) methods to explore BWS estimations

and willingness to pay (WTP) through an additional choice task (Marley & Louviere, 2005;

Marley et al., 2008). Best-worst scaling (BWS) is a discrete choice method developed by

Finn and Louviere (1992) which asks a person to select the ‘best’ or ‘most preferred’ and the

‘worst’ or ‘least preferred’ item in a given choice set. BWS is commonly used to provide

more choice data, and to understand choice processes through a random utility framework

which allows one to estimate the value of a specific item or attribute within a choice set. Due

to the nature of this framework, BWS is frequently perceived as having greater

discriminatory power than other traditional measures (i.e. Likert ratings), can provide a

greater rationale behind purchasing decisions, and is less cognitively demanding for the

survey taker to generate more valid data (Louviere et al., 2015; Burton et al., 2019; Parvin et

al., 2016). Discrete choice experiment (DCE) is a quantitative method of assessing

preferences by asking survey participants to accept or reject a given scenario based on the

entire profile. By incorporating price into DCE, we are also able to gain invaluable insight by

measuring individuals’ WTP estimates for a given product based on traditional demand

theory (Soto et al., 2016).

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 57

In this study, we identified various sustainability attributes which may be linked to hard

apple cider as depicted in Table 2. 1. We identified these attributes as those which may occur

throughout the production process and separated them into five distinct categories for the

BWS design. While not traditionally linked with ‘sustainability’, we also included critic

score as a means for more traditional judgement of quality. For each category, we identified

three levels requiring varying extent of intervention/effort from the producer; the baseline of

which indicating the lowest level of deviation from standard practices (or business-as-usual).

The sixth attribute category, price, was a component of the DCE design.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 58

TABLE 2. 1. CIDER ATTRIBUTES USED FOR THE BEST-WORST SCALING DESIGN

Attributes

Description

Levels

About the apples

Broad information

about the primary

ingredient for the

hard apple cider.

• Made from conventionally grown

apples (CON)*

• Uses locally grown apples (LOC)

• Made from 100% organic apples

(ORG)

Sustainable

agriculture

Sustainable practices

specifically

pertaining to orchard

management.

• Uses pollinator management practices

to protect bees (POL)*

• Farming practices support biodiversity

or restoration enhancement (BIO)

• Uses Integrated Pest Management to

lessen environmental consequence

(IPM)

Sustainable

production

Sustainable practices

specifically

pertaining to hard

apple cider

production, beyond

the agricultural

phase.

• Recycles by-products (i.e. uses apple

pomace for fertilizer) (REC)*

• Eco-conscious packaging and labeling

(ECO)

• Uses some energy from renewable

sources (REN)

Social Responsibility

Business practices

which contribute to

fulfilling civic duty

that benefit society as

a whole.

• Uses fair employment practices

(EMP)*

• Employees volunteer with the

community (VOL)

• Company makes charitable donations

(DON)

Critic Score

A score provided by

experts during a

tasting to provide

consumers better

information on

quality and subtle

differences.

• 85-89: Very good*

• 90-94: Outstanding

• 95-100: Classic

Price

The price of 6, 12-

fluid ounce servings

of hard apple cider.

• $6.99*

• $10.99

• $14.99

Asterisks indicate baseline variables for each attribute used for level-scale coding.

About the Apples

A key focus of many studies which aim to assess how consumers value sustainability is

the agricultural aspect of production. One of the most explored production methods is

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 59

organic farming. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines certified organic

foods as those that have been grown and processed according to federal guidelines pertaining

to soil quality management, pest and disease management, and other aspects. Many studies

have shown organically produced consumables to be associated with positive consumer

attitudes (Jorge et al., 2020; D’Amico et al., 2016), increased intention to purchase (Shin et

al., 2017; Aitken et al., 2020), and increased willingness to pay (Sellers-Rubio, 2016; Tait et

al., 2019; Mazzocchi et al., 2019). Because ‘organic’ is a term where standards are

transparent and regulated by the US Department of Agriculture, this metric of

environmentally friendly production helps to ease the ambiguity that characterizes non-

organic modes of production.

An additional aspect of sustainability that is highly explored is local production and

consumption. Unlike organic, the term ‘local’ does not have an official definition or set of

federal standards for labelling purposes. Local food systems call for shorter supply chains,

which contribute to economic benefits for both the producer and community at large,

improved farmer-consumer relationships, and a lower environmental footprint (Kneafsey, et

al., 2013). Using ‘local’ messaging on products has also been associated with a positive

impact on willingness to pay in developed regions renowned for production of certain goods

(i.e. Napa Valley wine) and in lesser-known emerging regions (Eustice et al., 2019). This

aspect is of particular interest for hard apple cider, as it is still an emerging market in many

regions throughout the country, and there is not yet a specific area which is regarded as

superior to others. Regional level solutions, like geographical indication, have proven

successful for sustaining specialty goods with qualities related to local identity, wherein an

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 60

elevated market value is preserved despite small producers lacking the resources to achieve

this individually (Dogan & Gokovali, 2012).

Sustainable Agriculture

Many aspects of sustainable agriculture management fall within organic farming

practices; however, the specifics of how a farm is managed are often not communicated to

the consumer. While gaining USDA organic certification has proven effective in improving

consumer attitudes towards consumable goods, this may not be a realistic path for small

businesses. There are many means of sustainable management that can be utilized by

farmers without pursing USDA organic certification, which can be a timely and costly

process (Veldstra et al., 2014; Jouzi et al., 2017). Designating official certifications which

address the role of ambiguity in marketing sustainably produced goods has shown promise in

addressing the gap between consumers’ attitudes and their behavioral intentions (Jorge, et al.,

2020). Labelling of specific practices has also shown improvements in positive attitudes

towards sustainably produced consumables, increasing behavioral intention to purchase

(Aitken et al., 2020).

Sustainable management practices which are not uncommon in apple orchard

management which we have included as attributes for our design include management

practices that support biodiversity and use of pest or disease management practices with

lower environmental impact. Through recent press and media, pollinators and other insect

species have gain visibility in the public eye and their value is increasingly recognized (Hall

& Martins, 2020). Specifically, pollinator management to protect bee populations has gained

important traction in conservation efforts in order to stabilize agriculture and support food

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 61

security (Hall & Martins, 2020). The importance of biodiversity has also been well-noted in

the agricultural field and has begun to play a role in consumer preferences as well.

Mazzocchi, et al. (2019) found that the inclusion of a label certifying biodiversity

conservation on wine had a positive impact on consumers’ willingness to pay a premium of

up to 50% for both low- and medium-priced wines. This label was particularly impactful on

consumers who had previous knowledge of the concept of biodiversity, showing that

sustainability education is an important aspect of marketing (Mazzocchi et al., 2019).

Integrated pest management (IPM) is the term used sustainable, science-based decision-

making management practice which aims to reduce pest risk while minimizing negative

health and economic impacts. While IPM terminology and associated practices are well used

in the industry, consumer awareness and perception are less understood (Stranieri et al.,

2017; Anderson et al., 1996). While each of these agricultural management practices have

similar goals in limiting negative environmental impact while supporting species with

symbiotic relationships, greater understanding on consumer perspective is needed.

Sustainable Production

Beyond agricultural production methods, studies have explored further along the product

management process. “Reduce, reuse, recycle” or the three R’s have been synonymous with

environmental conservation movement, and each of these terms are widely understood from

a general standpoint. Communication and marketing which uses this terminology has

traditionally proven successful in positively impacting consumer perception, however this is

not always the case with consumable goods. Reuse of water resources and food waste help to

create a closed-loop agricultural system, though studies have showed mixed perceptions

among consumers; while in many cases this is viewed positively (Russo et al., 2019; van

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 62

Herpen & de Hooge, 2019), there are also instances of disgust (McClaran et al., 2020;

Morales & Fitzsimons, 2007). While this method of sustainability calls for low-level

intervention, more research is needed to understand how consumers value recycling and

reuse in food systems.

Fiore et al. (2017) found that application of and advertising the use of new technology,

such as those which reduce emissions, to reach environmental sustainability goals has proven

a successful marketing technique in positively influencing attitudes towards wine. Renewable

energy is one such technology that has gained recognition and positive acceptance with

many. Most studies, however, have focused on consumer acceptance based on electricity

received from renewable sources rather than acceptance of products generated from the use

of renewable energy. This gap in understanding is critical to explore in order to support a

transition to a clean energy economy, and residential energy use only represents a fraction of

the country’s environmental footprint in comparison to industrial energy consumption.

Among many environmental impact studies associate with consumable goods, packaging

has been widely acknowledged by producers and consumers alike as a cause of numerous

environmental problems; however, solutions for eco-friendly food packaging are lesser

known amongst consumers (Ketelsen et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2020). This gap in

knowledge allows for little change in consumers’ attitudes towards packaging, and therefore

intention to purchase despite their acknowledgement that packaging is a major contributor to

environmental damage. This component of the food supply chain, however, is important to

explore as it effects both the producers’ and consumers’ environmental footprint (Zeng et al.,

2020). Understanding which communication tools are successful in conveying positive

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 63

messages of business management attributes in terms of reaching sustainability goals is an

important consideration for businesses entering this new eco-friendly market.

Social Responsibility

Another key aspect of many businesses’ sustainability goals include social responsibility,

including equitable employment and community goodwill through volunteering and

charitable donations. Many studies exploring the effects of corporate social responsibility

(CSR) efforts have shown a positive perception effect on consumer behavior (Amatulli et al.,

2018; Kim, 2017). Studies from Kwok et al. (2016) and Parsa et al. (2015) found that

businesses which committed to socially responsible green projects in terms of participating in

and/or donating to environmental projects resonated positively with restaurant patrons with

customers willing to pay more and travel farther for the experience. Further, this study found

that customers prioritized ‘green practices’ over other restaurant attributes including the food

and other amenities such as customer service. Despite these findings, there is again a

challenge with effectively conveying information to consumers in a way that is trustworthy

and meaningful. Companies showcasing their social responsibility can be perceived as self-

serving, having a negative impact on consumers’ attitudes towards the company and green

purchasing intentions (Arli et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Dang et al., 2020). Consumer

perception surrounding these social aspects of sustainability is based heavily on not

awareness but trust in the company and its leaders (Du et al., 2011; Xie et al., 2019; Wu,

2013).

Critic Score

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 64

Critic score, while not necessarily an attribute of sustainability values, has been the

traditional measure of quality for many products. Most notably, the use of critic score has

been used extensively as an independent measure of quality for wine and beer consumers

(Costanigro et al., 2014; Tait et al., 2019). While there are a number of valuation methods for

wine and beer, the most commonly used among critics and consumer reports is on a 50-100

numerical scale, where a score of at least 85 is considered above average quality. Among

studies where sustainability attributes among other qualities are evaluated, critic score has

been shown to have a consistent influence over consumers’ valuation of a product and

willingness to pay (Tait et al., 2019). While under independent consumer testing, hedonic

preference and perceived quality of wines do not always correlate to critic scores (Hopfer &

Heymann, 2014), these critic scores still hold an inherent influence over purchasing

decisions.

Price

Price of the product or cost to the consumer is expected to be viewed as a negative

attribute of any product or service, regardless of the level presented. Due to this, price was

not considered among the scaling design but rather the choice design within the BWC model.

Because the hard apple cider is underexplored among academic literature, the price levels

defined in this model were informed by national market data (The Nielson Company, 2018).

Hard apple cider domestic brands are typically more expensive than domestic beer brands;

however, because of market variations we identified the baseline price of $6.99 for a 6-pack.

For the medium ($10.99) and high ($14.99) level scale values, we utilized a price increase of

approximately 1.5 times and 2 times higher than the baseline, respectively.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 65

2.2. SURVEY DESIGN

We developed an online questionnaire (Appendix B) using Qualtrics XM survey software

for this study, prefaced by an explanation that its purpose was to identify how hard apple

cider consumers value various aspects of sustainable production. In order to participate in the

survey, participants were required to be of legal US drinking age (21 years or older) and to

have purchased and consumed cider at least six times in the last year. All participants were

also required to be residents of the US Mid-Atlantic states of interest: New Jersey, New

York, or Pennsylvania. To avoid response bias, the survey introduction did not provide any

details about common or best management practice related to apple agriculture, nor hard

apple cider production. The first part of the survey included sociodemographic questions:

gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, education, and household income. The second part of

the survey explored consumer behaviors, beliefs, and perceptions surrounding cider. The

third part of the survey, which is the key focus of this study, was designed to measure the

importance that respondents attached to sustainable attributes of hard apple cider using the

best-worst scaling method. The eighteen attributes, discussed in the previous section, were

clustered in six categories to best reflect the different aspects of sustainability (environment,

economy, society) throughout the cider production process (Table 2. 1). The attributes,

levels, and descriptions of key benefits pertaining to each level were given to survey

participants before the survey questions were posed.

The eighteen attribute levels were combined into fifty-four choice sets of six items each,

separated into six separate blocks such that a single respondent would only see nine choice

sets; respondents were asked to select the best and worst attribute of each set as if they were

shown on the label of a 6-pack of cider. The choice sets were generated using JMP Pro 14.2

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 66

software through the MaxDiff Design Platform, which follows a balanced incomplete block

design, such that each pair of items occurs equally often in the design. Price was introduced

through the follow-up question “What is the likelihood that you would pay $x.99 for this

product?” where the respondent could answer on a scale of 0-10. This was done to reduce

implicit bias that consumers attached to cost, and to close the gap between hypothetical and

true willingness to pay. The respondent was randomly assigned one of the six blocks using

the randomizing tool in Qualtrics XM, thereby increasing variation between respondents and

reducing potential bias in responses. Respondents were asked to complete two tasks for this

set of questions, 1) to choose the ‘most important’ and ‘least important’ attribute level, and 2)

to identify their likelihood to purchase the product at a given cost (Figure 2. 1). These two

tasks allow the researcher to compare the utility of all attribute levels and estimate their

willingness to pay for said attribute levels.

FIGURE 2. 1. BEST-WORST CHOICE QUESTIONS EXAMPLE

Imagine the information below is on the labeling of a hard apple cider 6-pack and has a flavor

profile that you are interested in trying. Select the “best feature” and the “worst feature” of

this product.

Best Feature

Worst

Feature

Uses locally grown apples

Pollinator management to protect bees

Eco-conscious packaging and labeling

Fair employment (equal opportunity, fair wages, etc.)

Critic Score: 90-94

On a scale from 0-10, how likely are you to purchase this product for $6.99?

Not at all likely Extremely likely

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 67

As the survey involved human subjects, it was reviewed and approved by Montclair State

University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) (study no. FY19-20-1600) before being

administered.

2.3. SAMPLING METHOD AND SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

A pre-test survey was administered in December 2019, and was distributed to all three

states through Qualtrics, a third-party experience management company which specializes in

marketing research (Qualtrics, Provo, UT). The pre-test received sixty-three complete

responses. Based on the data and response metrics, we adjusted the survey to make the

format more visually engaging to ensure participants were carefully reading the questions

and responding thoughtfully. Due to these changes, the pre-test data was not included in the

final analysis. The final survey was administered in January 2020. Quotas were set on the

survey platform such that a minimum of two hundred responses came from each state (New

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania), and reached a sample that allowed for a representative

distribution of the states’ populations in terms of sex, age, and ethnicity (Table 2. 2).

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 68

TABLE 2. 2. DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Surveyed population

(%)

US Census Estimates

(NJ, NY, PA total) (%)

Sex

Male

Female

Prefer not to answer

50.0

49.7

0.3

48.8

51.2

Age

21-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

14.0

17.8

18.1

17.8

17.4

14.9

5.0

19.3

17.1

18.4

19.0

21.2

Ethnicity

White

Black or African American

Hispanic or Latino

Asian or Pacific Islander

Native American or American

Indian

Other

Prefer not to answer

75.6

10.5

6.8

4.4

1.7

0.8

0.2

69.3

13.8

15.9

7.3

0.3

6.3

US Census Data obtained from the 2018 American Community Survey estimates (United States

Census Bureau ACS Estimates, 2018)

2.4. DATA ANALYSIS

The data was analyzed using STATA/SE 15.1 software through two different models to

estimate each choice task by using paired estimation (BWS) and random effect logit

estimation methods (DCE) (Flynn et al, 2007; Soto et al., 2016). Paired estimation of the

BWS model uses conditional (fixed effects) logit analysis to identify the ‘most important’

and the ‘least important’ attribute level by treating each best-worst pair as a distinct choice

outcome. The possible best-worst combinations can be calculated as

𝐽𝐽(𝐽𝐽−1)=𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜

Where 𝐽𝐽 is the number of attributes per choice set which fits likelihood models with a

dichotomous dependent variable coded as 1 if the best-worst pair was chosen and coded as 0

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 69

otherwise, such that the data are grouped and the likelihood is calculated relative to each

group (Soto et al., 2016; Flynn et al., 2007). The model then records observations for

individual 𝑖𝑖 that are correlated and affect the error terms ∈𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 and ∈𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 for both the best 𝑖𝑖 and

worst 𝑘𝑘 choices expressed as

𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖+∈𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 and 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖+∈𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

Where 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 and 𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 are all other possible best-worst combinations available in the given

scenario, and 𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖 represents the location of value 𝑗𝑗 for individual i on an underlying scale of

importance (Soto et al., 2016).

𝑜𝑜𝜆𝜆𝑗𝑗−𝜆𝜆𝑘𝑘� � 𝑜𝑜𝜆𝜆𝑖𝑖−𝜆𝜆𝑚𝑚

𝐽𝐽

𝑚𝑚=1

𝐽𝐽

𝑙𝑙=1

�

Above multinomial logit equation can be applied to this analysis to estimate the

probability of best-worst choice, which is done with the conditional fixed-effects logistic

regression (clogit) command within the STATA/SE statistical software package (Flynn et al.,

2007). In our case, the clogit command does this through all 20 possible best-worst

combinations. The difference in importance or ‘utility’ (𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

𝑖𝑖) of each attribute is

represented by the BWS equation adapted from Soto et al., 2016.

𝑈𝑈𝑑𝑑𝑖𝑖𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

𝑖𝑖=𝛽𝛽𝐴𝐴1

𝑖𝑖+⋯+𝛽𝛽𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴

𝑖𝑖+⋯+𝛽𝛽𝐴𝐴1𝐿𝐿1

𝑖𝑖𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴1𝐿𝐿1

𝑖𝑖+⋯+𝛽𝛽𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴

𝑖𝑖𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴

𝑖𝑖+∈𝑖𝑖

Where the importance of each best-worst pair in question 𝑖𝑖 (𝑖𝑖= 1, … 𝑛𝑛) and the level

scale values, such that the attribute chosen as best (𝛽𝛽𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴

𝑖𝑖) has an impact value (𝐷𝐷𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐿𝐿𝐴𝐴

𝑖𝑖) of 1,

the worst choice taking a value of -1, and the remaining taking a value of 0.

For the DCE task, the survey asked the respondent to answer on a scale of 1-10 the

likelihood that they would pay a given cost. The dependent variable here was coded as a 1 if

the profile considered a higher likelihood to pay (5-10) and as 0 otherwise (0-4) to indicate a

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 70

lower likelihood to pay. The data was analyzed using random effects logit (REL) which

assumes potentially unobserved heterogeneity in the data is a part of the error term structure.

The logit STATA/SE command fits a logit model for binary response by maximum

likelihood for each variable as well as the model’s constant. We estimated willingness to pay

using the wtp STATA/SE command (Hole, 2007) which estimates confidence for willingness

to pay measures for dichotomous data using the calculated cost coefficient and the attribute

coefficient from the REL model. This measure represents the willingness to pay in relation to

a baseline variable (Lopez-Feldman, 2013) such that it may be interpreted as an additional

premium to a given cost.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR STATISTICS

A total of 630 complete responses were collected and included in all analyses. We

received a representative distribution of sex, age, and ethnicity (Table 2. 2) and an equivalent

representation of each state of interest (Table 2. 3), which is reflective of the targeted

audience goal of this survey (Table 2. 2 and Table 2. 3). The majority of respondents were

white (75.6%), which is marginally higher than 2010 US Census Bureau data for the three

states of interest (NJ: 72%, NY: 69.7%, PA: 81.8%). Survey respondents were highly

educated, with 53.2% having earned a bachelor’s degree or higher. This is significantly

higher than what is seen in Census data, wherein approximately 35.2% of the population in

these states over 25 years old have earned this level of formal education (US Census Bureau,

2010). The distribution of household income is also found to be representative of the area,

where 22.1% of respondents fell within the average income bracket $50,000-$74,999. Higher

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 71

household incomes ($75,000 and above) were more highly represented than those below the

average income, likely due to the larger married (possibly dual-income) population.

TABLE 2. 3. SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

Variable

State of Residence

New Jersey

New York

Pennsylvania

33.2

33.4

Marital Status

Single (never married)

Married or in a domestic partnership

Divorced

Widowed

31.5

56.3

8.7

3.5

Household Income

Below $25,000

$25,000-$34,999

$35,000-$49,999

$50,000-$74,999

$75,000-$99,999

$100,000-$149,999

$150,000-$199,999

$200,000 or more

8.9

9.7

12.5

22.1

17.0

16.3

7.0

6.5

Education

Less than a high school diploma

High school diploma or equivalent

Trade/technical/vocational training

Some college

Associate degree

Bachelor’s degree

Graduate degree

Other

1.3

25.5

6.3

1.1

12.4

34.3

18.9

0.2

We also explored respondents’ consumption habits (Table 2. 4) and the normal price

range they would pay for a 6-pack of cider. Survey respondents, more often than not, are

seen as not exclusively cider drinkers, but rather enjoy beer and/or wine often more

frequently than cider. While 41.1% report drinking cider once a week or more, 53.1% drink

beer, and 52% drink wine at the same frequency. 21.3% of survey participants reported

consuming cider a few times a year, which was nearly double the amount compared to beer

and wine, and approximately equivalent to those who drank beer or wine a few times a year

or less. This finding nods to the industry finding of cider being an accessible alcoholic drink

with diverse appeal (The Nielson Company, 2018). The Nielson Company (2018), a global

market research firm, reported cider showed equal appeal to all genders, and has shown

steadily increasing appeal among usual wine and beer drinkers over the last five years. While

this points to an important opportunity which can be leveraged by cider producers, there are

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 72

some inherent challenges with market retention for this demographic of those with diverse

taste preferences.

TABLE 2. 4. CONSUMPTION FREQUENCY

Variable

Cider (%)

Beer (%)

Wine (%)

How frequently do you consume ….?

Never or very rarely

A few times a year

About once a month

Two to three times a month

About once a week

A few times a week

Daily or almost daily

21.3

14.1

23.5

16.5

14.9

9.7

14.4

12.5

8.4

11.4

14.1

26.5

12.5

7.9

13.8

10.5

15.7

17.3

23.4

11.3

Popular, commercially made cider brands can typically be found for $10 or less, above

which are generally craft or boutique ciders (The Neilson Company, 2018). When asked

“What is the average price you pay for a 6-pack of cider?” 57.15% of respondents answered

they paid a premium price of $10 or more (Figure 2. 2). This question was unrelated to any

specific hard apple cider attributes and was merely included as a general gauge of average

purchasing price.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 73

FIGURE 2. 2. PERCENTAGES OF RESPONDENTS THAT ARE WILLING TO PAY

FOR A 6-PACK OF CIDER AT VARIOUS PRICE POINTS

This split between major price points (≤$10 versus ≥$10 per 6-pack) may indicate that our

sample population has a diversity in experience levels when it comes to the subtle

complexities of hard apple cider associated with traditional quality assessment.

3.2. BEST-WORST SCALING ANALYSIS

The conditional fixed-effects logistic regression (clogit) performed on the attribute

groups showed consistent results in terms of significance, expected sign, and magnitude

(Table 2. 5). The ‘critic score’ group was omitted due to collinearity with the data; because

critic score is an assessment by outside expert opinion with a known given value, this

attribute is objective while the others are subjective and based on the respondents’ opinions.

By removing this group, it also serves as a reference point for the underlying scale of

importance for other groups.

7.29%

35.56%

42.36%

10.19%

4.60%

$5-$7

$7-$10

$10-$15

$15-$20

over $20

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 74

TABLE 2. 5. PAIRED ESTIMATION CONDITIONAL LOGISTIC REGRESSION

ANALYSIS

Attribute Group

Coefficient

Standard Error

95% CI

About the apples

.7783**

.0275

.7243

.8322

Sustainable agriculture

.5625**

.0274

.5088

.6162

Sustainable production

.3435**

.0271

.2904

.3967

Social responsibility

.1537**

.0268

.1013

.2062

Critic score

0 (omitted)

Attribute Level

LOC

.9591**

.3868

.8333

1.0349

ORG

.7962**

.4140

.7151

.8773

BIO

.2014**

.0379

.1271

.2757

IPM

.3193**

.0409

.2392

.3995

ECO

.0426

.0375

-.0310

.1161

REN

-.0293

.0402

-.1082

.0496

VOL

-.3614**

.0397

-.4393

-.2835

DON

-.0853*

.0382

-.1602

-.0104

Number of observations

113,400

Prob > Chi-square

0.000

Log likelihood

-16355.703

Asterisks following coefficients indicate significant differences at, ** <.001 and * <.05.

LOC: made from locally grown apples, ORG: made from 100% organic apples, BIO: farming

practices support biodiversity or restoration enhancement, IPM: uses integrated pest

management to lessen environmental consequence, ECO: eco-conscious packaging and labeling,

REN: uses some energy from renewable sources, VOL: employees volunteer with the community,

DON: company makes charitable donations.

All attribute groups were found significant, where ‘about the apples’ was found to be the

most highly valued group, followed by ‘sustainable agriculture’, ‘sustainable production’,

and ‘social responsibility’. With each of these groups showing significance, we can assume

that each attribute explored plays a role in consumers’ preferences for hard apple cider. As

anticipated given previous consumer studies, sustainability metrics have an influence on

preferences for consumable goods. The baseline level for attribute groups were not included

in the analysis, such that the results would show the marginal utility in comparison to the

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 75

baseline level (see Table 1). Levels within the ‘about the apples’, ‘sustainable agriculture’,

and ‘social responsibility’ groups were found to be significant in respect to the baseline level.

Levels pertaining to the cider’s primary ingredient were the most highly positive and

significant factors found to influence a consumer’s utility of a product. The attribute level

‘uses locally grown apples’ was the most highly valued (0.9591), followed closely behind by

‘100% organic’ (0.7962). Organic and local characteristics have been frequently identified as

some of the most highly valued aspects of sustainability affecting purchasing decisions.

Schaulfele & Hamm (2018) found that wine consumers preferred organic products because

of their greater trust in the product, contribution to combating climate change, taste

preference, and possible health benefits, while consumers found local products preferable

because they perceived a higher quality and had greater trust in the product itself. While

‘local’ may have different interpretations, literature has shown a level of awareness and

appreciation of terroir when it comes to purchasing consumable goods, building the product’s

exclusivity and desirability (Eustice et al., 2019; Dogan & Gokovali, 2012). Janssen (2018)

found that consumers prioritized local and domestic food over other attributes including

perceived quality, price, convenience, and environmental impact. While the concept of

ethnocentrism has not been applied to cider, it has been seen as a driving factor for similar

products like wine and other high-value products (Fernandez-Ferrin et al., 2018; Maksan et

al., 2019).

Levels regarding best management practices specific to the agricultural production

behind the final product were also found as positive and significant. ‘Integrated pest

management’ was valued higher (0.3193451) than ‘support biodiversity restoration or

enhancement’ (0.201409). When compared to the marginal utility of how the apples were

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 76

farmed, however, these values are relatively low. It is possible that the baseline ‘pollinator

management’ is something that is more readily understood than the other levels in this

attribute group, pointing to a possible gap in consumer knowledge regarding specific

agricultural management practices. Pollinator conservation continues to be a major focus of

conservation efforts, and has gained attention in both public policy and education; however,

studies have shown that this has not necessarily translated to public knowledge of

biodiversity’s role in pollination and other ecosystem services (Nicholls et al, 2020). While

these attribute levels were expected to be positive (Mazzocchi et al., 2019), there is likely an

opportunity to make meaningful communication outreach efforts to potential customers.

Sustainable production practice attribute levels were found to be insignificant, indicating

that the baseline value of ‘recycling by-products’ is more highly valued than the other

attribute levels. While the baseline levels were chosen to be representative of the least

resource-intensive management methods from the producer perspective, it is possible that

that is misunderstood by the consumer. Again, this indicates an important gap in effective

communication between the producer and consumer, which should be addressed in order to

ensure that consumers are able to acknowledge the benefit of various, lesser understood,

sustainable management practices (Plank & Teichmann, 2018; Opitz et al., 2019)

Levels regarding social responsibility attributes were found significant and negative,

indicating that hard apple ciders which advertise their employees volunteering with the

community and/or making charitable donations is viewed as a detractor for potential

customers. Opposite to the findings in studies Kwok et al (2016) and Parsa et al (2015), this

was an unexpected result. This finding could point to the concern of negative consumer

perception towards corporate social responsibility claims, which have been perceived as

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 77

hypocritical or untrustworthy (Arli et al., 2017). While some sustainability claims are easily

conveyed to consumers and are well understood, like ‘local’ and ‘organic’, others may

require increased intensive efforts from company marketing and communications to ensure

the proper message is being given and that the target audience is being reached.

3.3. WILLINGNESS TO PAY ANALYSIS

For the random effects logistic (REL) regression model, the data was pooled together (1-

4=no, 5-9=yes) to create a binary dataset, where responses answered whether they were

likely to pay the given price for hard apple cider with the given set of attribute levels. This

model allows us to compute the marginal willingness to pay values for specific attributes. For

this regression, we included ‘critic score’ levels as the objective score may play a role in the

subjective value of a product. We again removed the baseline values for each attribute group

to represent a point of comparison for value within the group levels. The results in table 6

show that all given attributes were positively valued and significant to their willingness to

pay. The ‘cost’ and ‘constant’ variables are those which are generated through the REL

regression model, and are used to calculate the WTP value for each attribute variable

included in the model. Each of the WTP values shown in Table 2. 6 indicates the

respondents’ willingness to pay a premium to go from the baseline values to the alternative

attribute levels within each attribute group.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 78

TABLE 2. 6. WILLINGNESS TO PAY REL MODEL

Attribute

Coefficient

Standard Error

95% CI

|WTP|

About the apples

LOC

ORG

1.1269**

.7170**

.0961

.0967

.9385

.5274

1.3153

.9066

$10.05

$6.39

Sustainable agriculture

BIO

IPM

.6365**

.6517**

.0987

.0978

.4431

.4601

.8298

.8433

$5.68

$5.81

Sustainable production

ECO

REN

.7951**

.5199**

.0941

.0945

.6107

.3347

.9796

.7052

$7.09

$4.64

Social responsibility

VOL

DON

.8397**

.6604**

.0913

.0901

.6484

.4839

1.0310

.8369

$7.49

$5.89

Critic score

90-94

95-100

.9775**

1.0651**

.1044

.7986

.8605

1.1565

1.2697

$8.72

$9.50

Cost

.1121

.0083

.0959

.1284

Constant

-1.7813

.0394

-1.8586

-1.7041

Number of

observations

11,340

Prob > Chi-square

0.0000

Log likelihood

-4421.656

LOC: made from locally grown apples, ORG: made from 100% organic apples, BIO: farming

practices support biodiversity or restoration enhancement, IPM: uses integrated pest

management to lessen environmental consequence, ECO: eco-conscious packaging and labeling,

REN: uses some energy from renewable sources, VOL: employees volunteer with the community,

DON: company makes charitable donations.

The most highly valued attribute level was for hard apple cider which uses locally grown

apples, where consumers were willing to pay an additional $10.05 per 6-pack as compared to

that which uses conventionally grown apples of unspecified origin. Cider using organic

apples was also valued highly, albeit less so than locally grown, at an additional $6.39. These

findings were consistent with those in the best-worst scaling analysis and with previous

literature, where studies have shown that the connection between attitudes towards organic

and local food products is consistent with purchasing behavior and a willingness to pay a

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 79

premium for these features (Janseen, 2017; Schaufele & Hamm, 2018). These findings are

also supported through the increasing tendency to reimagine food and its growing

embeddedness in identity; as environmental issues become more salient, food choices have

increasingly been viewed in a holistic context (Yin et al., 2020; Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016).

Critic score was the second most highly valued attribute group, playing a substantial role

in consumers’ willingness to pay a premium, with an additional $9.50 for ’95-100: Classic’

and $8.72 for ’90-94: Outstanding’ reviews. While this group is not considered as an aspect

of sustainability, these findings show that consumers may be more familiar with traditional

scaling and trusting of expert opinions, valuing the perceived quality of a hard apple cider

more than sustainability merit characteristics which may be included in cider production.

Tait, et al. (2019) found similar results, where critic score is highly valued in terms of

willingness to pay a premium as compared to other label features. Our results show that

while the highest score is most highly valued, it only provides an additional $0.78 premium.

A study on wine quality judgement by Hopfer and Heymann (2014) found that rating and

perception of quality often varied between wine experts and consumers, though the

evaluations of wines was more consistent among expert critics. This study links this finding

not to the necessity of wine expert critics, but as the value of having the ability to define and

describe the characteristics and qualities of a product they enjoy. The 100-point rating scale

can be useful as a quick reference for purchasers to identify quality; however, this finding

shows that reaching the elite standard of ‘classic’ should not necessarily be prioritized by

cider makers when it comes to charging a premium for their product. As supported by our

findings and previous literature, critic score provides some value in obtaining new customers

but does not necessarily play a strong role in customer retention or product loyalty.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 80

Agricultural management practices were also found valued positively, with ‘integrated

pest management’ valued at a premium of $5.81 compared to more traditional pollinator

management practices. As anticipated based on the BWS results, using practices which

‘support biodiversity restoration’ had a lesser impact on willingness to pay, with an added

value of $5.68. These findings could mean a possible gap in the understanding of agricultural

management practices and their impact on the environment. While IPM allows for a

decreased environmental impact, biodiversity restoration practices can actually have a

positive impact on the agricultural ecosystem. Each of these aspects may be integrated in

organic farming; however, more consumer education may be necessary to ensure premium

profit in order to make these time and resource intensive management practices worthwhile

for the farmer. Nicholls, et al. (2020), found that while there was public concern for

pollinator conservation and biodiversity, this did not translate to public understanding of

species’ roles in ecosystem services. In order to translate this concern into effective support

of agricultural management practices, public education and related policy development is

necessary (Lima & Bastos, 2019).

Sustainable management production practices were found positively valued, where use of

‘eco-conscious packaging’ was valued at a premium of $7.09 and ‘uses power from some

renewable energy sources’ at $4.64 as compared to the baseline level ‘recycles by-products’.

This finding is unexpected, as these attribute levels were both insignificant, and were lowly

and negatively valued, respectively. This finding could also be explained as a limitation in

the model – we considered recycling by-products as the baseline value, as it requires very

low-level intervention/effort from a management perspective. However, recycling and reuse

is generally better understood among consumers; this finding could point to a gap in

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 81

information pertaining to sustainable production practices like those involving energy use

and packaging. Another unexpected result was that levels within the ‘social responsibility’

group were also highly valued, where consumers were willing to pay an additional $7.49 to

support a product where company employees volunteer with the community, and $5.89 for a

company which donates to charity as compared to one which only practices fair employment.

Similarly, this result could be due to our baseline value of ‘fair employment’ – while this is

commonly considered a standard practice as compared to volunteering/donations, it is

possible that this aspect of social responsibility is more highly valued than efforts which may

require the company to go beyond the bare minimum expectation of social equity.

These unexpected findings may indicate that while respondents may have a low utility for

these attributes, they do still value them in terms of their purchasing decisions. For example,

attributes like packaging and charitable donations can be framed as tangible whereas the

benefits of biodiversity and renewable energy are relatively intangible, particularly when

framed in terms of monetary valuation. These results point to a key challenge in consumer

behavior research, namely the attitude-behavior gap between how consumers feel about a

product (or its attributes) and how they behave in terms of intended and actual purchases.

This could also point to a notable challenge in sustainability marketing, which is the

perception of greenwashing marketing (Arli et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2018; Dang et al.,

2020). Brands making unsubstantiated claims for a product’s environmental attributes have

caused mistrust and can play a large role in widening the gap between the producer-consumer

relationship. Research has shown that substantiating claims, such as a certification label

granted by a trusted external organization (i.e. USDA’s organic), improves this relationship

and helps to close the gap between consumers attitudes towards the environment and

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 82

behaviors in purchasing environmentally friendly products (Dang et al., 2020; Zhang et al.,

2018).

4. CONCLUSION

This study surveyed 630 hard apple cider consumers residing in New Jersey, New York,

and Pennsylvania. By using the BWC method which combines BWS and DCE models, we

presented a two-tiered method which estimated a hierarchal relationship among sustainability

attributes that affect a cider consumer’s intention to purchase at different price points.

‘Local’ had the highest utility and was most highly valued at a $10.05 premium when

compared to conventionally grown. ‘Organic’ was also very highly perceived but had a lesser

value at a $6.39 premium. As anticipated, critic score was highly valued in a linear manner,

where a higher critic score led to a higher willingness to pay. Agricultural management

practices IPM and supporting biodiversity restoration had a positive impact on consumer

perception and were valued at a premium of $5.81 and $5.68 respectively. The sustainable

production practice attribute levels showed confounding results, where they did not show

substantial utility to the consumer; however, they were valued at a premium as compared to

the baseline of recycling by-products. Social responsibility also presented confounding

results as the attribute levels showed negative utility, but the WTP model showed that

consumers were still willing to pay a premium of $5.89 for charitable donations and $7.49

for community volunteering.

The somewhat confounding results found when comparing the BWS and DCE model

results points to a key challenge in consumer behavior research: the attitude-behavior

divergence between how consumers feel about a product (or its attributes) and how they

behave in terms of intended and actual purchases. Based on these unexpected findings in this

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 83

research, and similar challenges discussed through previous literature exploring consumer

valuation of sustainability attributes, more exploratory behavioral research is needed in this

field. Effective communication of the specific actions and inactions that take place in

sustainable management practices is necessary in order to convey the proper message to

potential consumers. By bridging this gap, hard apple cider producers can better represent

their product, convey important environmental information in the scope of agricultural and

business management, and have consumers value their products in a way that make the

additional resources necessary to incorporate sustainability metrics worthwhile in terms of

product profitability.

The Mid-Atlantic states of the US northeast represent an ideal marketplace for the

growing hard apple cider industry, based on its current apple production, existing road and

network infrastructure, and population density in addition to the currently booming cider

economy. Inconsistencies and barriers related to state ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) laws,

however, do lead to some interstate regional development challenges. For instance, hard

apple cider has only recently been recognized as a product distinct from wine or beer for

taxation and regulation purposes in many states despite its vast differences in terms of

production process and percent ABV. While regulating policy is moving in the right direction

from a logistics standpoint, there is still considerable work needed to assist continued

industry growth. Policy incentives regarding sustainable agricultural and production

management practices also could help to improve sustainability metrics among hard apple

cider. Some incentives, like those surrounding USDA organic certification, are frequently

considered inaccessible to small business due to high participation costs. Through the

creation of government incentives directed specifically for private orchards, rather than

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 84

commercial ones, sustainable management practices could see greater support and access to

resources which are otherwise out of reach. This research shows that consumers are willing

to pay a premium for hard apple cider with sustainability attributes, and the development of

policy which supports farmers’ incorporating sustainable production practice would help to

improve the supply chain and encourage sustainable growth.

Future research could build upon this research by utilizing other survey methods which

may more accurately represent willingness to pay and intention to purchase, such as revealed

preference methods like analyzing market data and applying auction experiments in various

settings. Ethnographic research could also be explored to develop a more detailed

understanding of behavior and choices, which could help in explaining these seeming

paradoxes that our research has uncovered. Similar consumer behavioral research should also

continue to explore how sustainability attributes impact competitive sales, like wine, beer,

and spirits, to determine how sustainably produced products impact overall sales and

consumer expectations for alcoholic beverage features. Further, research could continue to

seek to bridge the producer-consumer gap through gathering survey and interview data from

hard apple cider producers to gain perspective on willingness to accept. Such research could

provide useful information for alcoholic beverage industry marketing analytics, and help

guide policy development aimed at promoting sustainable business growth and development.

By pursuing continued research within this field, we hope to gain insight on the hard apple

cider industry and inform related sustainable agricultural development endeavors.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 85

CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT

OF HARD APPLE CIDER USING AN INTEGRATED LCA-LCC

APPROACH

ABSTRACT: Food production systems rely heavily on resources and energy inputs, and are

associated with environmental impacts such as emissions to air, water, and soil. While best

management practices are often put in place to ensure land productivity and production

efficiency, there are still many unknowns when it comes to sustainable farm and processing

management. This study uses an integrated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost

(LCC) model approach to address these challenges utilizing apple orchards in the northeastern

US as case for sustainable management through the hard apple cider production system. We

explored organic farming, hard apple cider production, and both on-site and off-site packaging

and distribution scenarios to better inform orchardists’ approach towards sustainable

management decision-making. We found that packaging and distribution held the largest

environmental impact, and that 100% on-site distribution had the lowest carbon footprint at

0.912kg CO2 per serving of hard apple cider. Further, this scenario was found to have the lowest

cost at just $1.52-$0.79 per serving (depending on the discount rate applied), based on capital,

operational, and environmental (CO2 and NOx emissions) costs. Comparatively, 100% off-site

distribution had an impact of 1.296kg CO2 at a cost of $1.86-$0.95 per serving; and 50/50 on-

site/off-site distribution had an impact of 1.205kg CO2 at a cost of $1.71-$0.88 per serving.

While at a per serving scale these differences may appear marginal, this study provides valuable

findings for current and potential hard apple cider producers to help better inform management

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 86

decisions, supporting the longevity of an environmentally friendly and economically viable

business model.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. SUSTAINABLE FOOD PRODUCTION FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

Food systems rely heavily on resource and energy inputs and are associated with

environmental impacts such as emissions to air, land, and water that can affect environmental

quality and productivity. In 2018, agriculture was responsible for an estimated 661 million

metric tons of CO2 equivalent, representing 9.9% of total United States (US) greenhouse gas

emissions (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). In the face of evolving challenges

in food production, agricultural systems have looked towards sustainable solutions to meet

the needs of the consumer while decreasing environmental consequences where possible

(Oosterveer & Sonnenfeld, 2011; McCullough, 2008). Thus, agricultural sustainability is a

fundamental requirement for environmental conservation, food production, and food security.

In order to achieve agricultural sustainability, it is essential that policies are put in place that

support sustainable practices and ensure that agricultural institutions are provided access to

necessary knowledge and technology. These advances are crucial to avoid eroding

biodiversity and environmental quality while preparing for the inevitable challenges of

climate change. In an increasingly globalized food system, sustainable agricultural systems

face even more challenges in being financially competitive in even local markets. Policies

that support the development of localized food systems can support consumer valuation on

the relationship between themselves, the producer, and the product (Selfa & Qazi, 2005;

Heron & Roche, 2018; Papaoikonomou & Ginieis, 2017). For most agricultural producers, it

would be more realistic from an economic standpoint to not be fully localized, but rather

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 87

distribute in local networks and distribute through larger supply-chains beyond regional

networks (Heron & Roche, 2018). Even when distributing outside of the local network,

agricultural sustainability can be achieved when internal and external policies align to

support the needs of the industry as well as the demands of the consumer.

1.2. A CASE FOR HARD APPLE CIDER

Apple production encompasses a complete system, including agricultural cultivation and

production as well as post-harvest management such as food processing and distribution. The

US is the second largest apple producer in the world, with approximately 85% of production

consumed domestically (US Department of Agriculture, 2016). Apples, like many tree crops,

are highly dependent on pesticides and fertilizers, making orchard agricultural systems

subject to multiple challenges in achieving sustainable production practices. Orchard

management often also requires a great deal of energy and water resources in order to ensure

the orchard’s health and productivity, as well as to prepare fruits for sale. USDA organic

certification is just one measure of sustainable production; however, organically produced

apples only account for a small portion of the country’s annual production. While the

northeast produces approximately 20% of US grown apples (with the majority grown in New

York state), only 0.45% of that production comes from certified or exempt organic farms (US

Department of Agriculture, 2014; US Department of Agriculture, 2020). Another concern

with sustainable production is food waste. The National Resources Defense Council (2017)

estimated that 16% of food waste comes from farms at the very beginning of the food supply

chain. While reducing the volume of surplus food generated may be the most apparent

method of waste reduction, it is not necessarily a practical means for agribusinesses.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 88

Recovering this food loss by introducing additional food processing methods may be

considerably more feasible for businesses of varying sizes.

While previous studies have attempted to measure the environmental impact of apples

(Zhu et al., 2018; Goosens et al., 2017; Keyes et al., 2015), the evaluation of apple

production has not yet been extended to hard (alcoholic) apple cider. The increasing

popularity of high-value artisan products can be seen in the more popular craft brewing

industry, which in a way has revealed a path for hard apple cideries to enter the craft

beverage market. Similarly, supporting new agricultural ventures is the food system

localization movement, which can help to support specialization of high value grown and

crafted goods. Localization of a food system also can help to frame sustainable agriculture

and food by encouraging producers to incorporate practices that avoid environmental

degradation, support agrobiodiversity, empower employees and local community networks,

and support economic growth throughout the local region (Hinrichs, 2003). While this trend

opens an exciting opportunity to reinvigorate small orchards and improve rural agricultural

economies, this growth could also lead to the industry growing beyond its means, creating a

strain on the environment. Sustainable planning and development can be approached through

evaluation techniques including Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis

(LCCA) which are useful tools in providing a holistic evaluation of a production system.

1.3. INTEGRATING LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND LIFE CYCLE COST MODELS

LCA is a cradle-to-grave assessment approach that is used to estimate the cumulative

environmental impact of a system or process. This comprehensive approach considers inputs

such as raw materials, energy and water requirements, and land use change as well as outputs

such as emissions and waste to better assess the ecological impact of a system throughout the

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 89

life of a system operation. LCA can be used as a decision-making tool that can identify

environmental hotspots of a system and the key drivers of said hotspots to inform where

changes might be made to dampen environmental impact. LCCA is a useful tool which can

be used to provide a holistic evaluation of costs ranging from capital investment, through

operational use, and end-of-life. While many studies have shown success in calculating the

environmental impact of apple production (Zhu et al., 2018; Goosens et al., 2017; Keyes et

al., 2015), none have been representative of organic orchards in the Northeastern US.

Further, while environmental impact assessments of processes like vinification (Meneses et

al., 2016; Iannone et al., 2016), brewing (Cimini & Moresi, 2016; Koroneos et al., 2005), and

beverage packaging (Cimini & Moresi, 2016; Cimini & Moresi, 2018; Iannone et al., 2016)

have been performed, none to our knowledge have explored these aspects in the scope of

hard apple cider production.

In this investigation, we utilize an integrated Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost

(LCA-LCC) model (Norris, 2001; Bi et al., 2016) which was developed to provide a

comprehensive environmental and economic assessment of organic apple production in the

Northeastern US, and investigate hard apple cider production and distribution as a means for

low-impact added value for organic orchards. In our integrated LCA-LCC approach, we

constrain our input parameters to underscore the growing conditions and present market in

the northeast, and utilize data informed from local orchards, previous studies, and LCA

datasets to be representative of the specific conditions in a locally made and distributed hard

apple cider production system. By utilizing the findings from the LCA model to inform the

LCC model, we are able to incorporate the costs of externalities informed through

environmental emissions data. In doing so, we can interpret our LCA-LCC findings to help

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 90

guide future policy development for strategies related to supporting organic farming and

agribusiness.

2. METHOD

An integrated LCA-LCC model was developed to provide a comprehensive assessment

of a hard apple cider production system, and to compare distribution scenarios to evaluate

sustainable management practices (Figure 3. 1). The LCA and LCC models are described in

the sections below.

FIGURE 3. 1. INTEGRATED LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT AND LIFE CYCLE COST

(LCA-LCC) MODEL OF THE HARD APPLE CIDER PRODUCTION SYSTEM

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 91

2.1. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT MODEL

We performed the LCA through SimaPro Version 9.1 software using the ReCiPe 2016

method under the hierarchist perspective, which is considered the consensus model most

commonly used in scientific research with calculated emissions based on a global perspective

of a 100-year time horizon (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 2016;

Goedkoop et al., 2009). The ReCipE midpoint impact categories are suitable for detecting

environmental impacts early in the cause-effect chain, which represents a large number of

impact categories, including climate change, ozone depletion, human toxicity, ecotoxicity,

land and water stress, and resource depletion, among others (Table 3. 1). The endpoint

impact categories are better suited to evaluate a more holistic view of the end of the cause-

effect chain and are based on damage, where impacts on human health, environmental

quality, and resource availability are directly derived from the midpoint characterization

factors (Goedkoop et al., 2009).

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 92

TABLE 3. 1. RECIPE MIDPOINT AND ENDPOINT IMPACT CATEGORIES

Midpoint Impact Category

Abbreviation

Global warming

Stratospheric ozone depletion

Ionizing radiation

Ozone formation, Human health

OFH

Fine particulate matter formation

Ozone formation, terrestrial ecosystems

OFT

Terrestrial acidification

Freshwater eutrophication

Marine eutrophication

Terrestrial ecotoxicity

Freshwater ecotoxicity

Marine ecotoxicity

Human carcinogenic toxicity

Human non-carcinogenic toxicity

Land use

Mineral resource scarcity

Fossil resource scarcity

Water consumption

Endpoint Impact Category

Human health

Ecosystem health

Resource scarcity

Within the ReCiPe framework, the LCA model was conducted to be representative of a

hard apple cider production system operating and distributing within the US northeast. The

selected functional unit, to which all values are related, was a 12-fluid ounce serving of hard

apple cider. Some key assumptions of our model include consistent production volume of

apples between the two different agricultural systems, conventional and organic. Certain

pieces of equipment were not included in the production and packaging stages, such as

fermentation chambers, refrigeration equipment, and filling equipment. While the production

and disposal of these equipment does have known high environmental impacts such as

energy costs associated with raw material extraction and refining, similar studies have

excluded ancillary equipment in their inventories and rather included only their impact while

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 93

in use (Meneses et al., 2016; Iannone et al., 2016; Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al., 2015). To

address this, we only considered the water and electricity consumption associated with

completing these processes (crushing, pressing, filling, etc.) for our analysis. Transportation

estimations were also made when considering the distribution of the final product.

Relationships between producers and distributors vary greatly depending on state alcohol

sale and distribution laws, as well as consumer supply and demand. Thus, distance and

volume estimations were made based on a 100-mile radius (approximately 160-km) from

where the hard apple cider produced, a distance which in much literature is considered ‘local’

for consumable goods (Smith & MacKinnon, 2007). Activities, such as refrigeration before

customer sales or consumption, were also not taken into account; while hard apple cider is

most commonly consumed cold, it is challenging to estimate electricity use without extensive

consumer behavior studies.

2.2. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY

The life cycle inventory consists of the collection, interpretation, and preparation of data

necessary for the environmental assessment within the project’s system boundaries. The

EcoInvent (version 3) database was utilized as the principal source of background data;

however, the majority of the processes and material information were adapted so that they

were representative of the observed system. Agricultural phase data was adapted from

primary data obtained from the Rodale Institute, an organic agricultural research facility in

Pennsylvania, which shared information on their apple orchard management practices. Where

specific primary data could not be obtained, data from previous literature were used to

complete the inventory (Cimini & Moresi, 2016; Meneses et al., 2016; Iannone et al., 2016;

Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al., 2015). For each phase within the system boundary, input data (i.e.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 94

materials, natural resources, energy requirements) and output data (i.e. emissions) were

included. All data was adapted to be representative of our functional unit, 12 fluid ounces, or

a single serving, of hard apple cider.

The agricultural phase begins with establishing the orchard, which includes the tree

nursery producing fruit seedlings, soil cultivation, planting trees, installation of a trellis

system, and sowing grass seed. We assumed normal precipitation levels (254 m3/ha) in the

Northeast (National Climate Report, 2019), which is considered adequate rainfall for most

apple trees, and therefore did not include a drip irrigation system in our model. While

irrigation is often considered common practice for many agricultural systems, this is not

necessarily the case for plots of all sizes nor for organic farming systems. When considering

conservation agricultural practices, irrigation systems should match the scope of the farm,

and manual irrigation methods are not unheard of in small orchards like that at the Rodale

Institute, which informed our data inventory. After three years with continued soil

cultivation, the apple trees are assumed mature and fruiting, which is when the orchard

moves to a more productive phase. The productive phase includes soil cultivation, compost

application, pesticide and fungicide application, mowing, harvesting, transporting the harvest

to the hard apple cider production facility, and all associated machine use. Carbon dioxide

uptake by biomass was estimated at 49 tons/hectare (World Food LCA Database, 2016).

Annual compost application was estimated at 12 tons/hectare (Rodale Institute, 2019). One of

the largest challenges with managing orchards using organic practices is dealing with pests.

Pest management (insecticide and fungicide applications) was estimated as the following:

dormant oil at 18.7 liters/hectare annually, Procidic at 0.44 liters/hectare, Sulfur at 6.7

kg/hectare 10 times annually, Surround at 56 kg/hectare 5 times annually, Entrust at 0.73

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 95

liters/hectare DiPel at 2.2 kg/hectare and Madex at 0.15 liters/hectare each 5 times annually

(Rodale Institute, 2019). We assumed 100% emissions to soil for all pesticide materials.

Water needs for applying insecticide and fungicide were estimated using the suggested

dilution method for each product above, and the associated emissions were calculated using

the World Food LCA Database guidelines. Diesel needs were estimated based on tractor and

trailer transport requirements for applying pesticides, bimonthly mowing in the summer

months (June-September), bimonthly manual fruit thinning in June, annual manual pruning

done during the winter months (December-February), and harvesting. The average annual

production was assumed to be 40.8 tons/hectare based on the EcoInvent (v3) US apple

production dataset and was deemed appropriate for the region of interest based on the Rodale

Institute’s reported annual yield.

The hard apple cider production phase begins with washing the apples, where water

needs were estimated at 200 gallons/ton (Water and Wastewater Use in the Food Processing

Industry, 2020). Next, the apples are crushed and pressed, where we estimated electricity

needs based on a vinification LCA study by Iannone et al., (2016). This process produces

apple pomace, which is the pulpy residue from crushed fruit which contains skins, seeds,

stems, and other fibrous material. Pomace is returned to the system and can be used as a

component to create compost, which in turn fertilizes the orchard. An estimated 0.638 kg of

apples are required to produce 12 fluid ounces of cider and 0.16 kg of pomace. The

remaining cider then goes through an UV pasteurization process, for which we estimated

electricity requirements of 0.22 Joules/gram of juice (Rodriguez-Gonzalez et al., 2015). The

pasteurized cider then moves to a collection container, where yeast is added for temperature-

controlled fermentation (Meneses et al., 2016; Iannone et al., 2016). Cleaning and sanitizing

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 96

are crucial components of safe consumable goods production, and thus we also approximated

quantities for conventional food-safe cleaning and sanitizing agents and the water required

for washing equipment (Meneses et al., 2016). After two to four weeks, the cider has

fermented, and can move to the packaging phase.

The hard apple cider is packaged in aluminum cans with a volume of 12 fluid ounces

(0.35 liters) for distribution, and steel kegs with a volume of 30 liters for on-site consumption

(which contains approximately 84 12 fluid ounce servings). Data for this phase was primarily

informed from a study by Cimini and Moresi (2016), though calculations were made to be

representative of our functional unit and system requirements. Canned packaging considered

the primary packaging requirements, including secondary aluminum for the can, shape casted

aluminum for the tab, label paper, ink, ink diluent, and acrylic binder. Packaging needs for

distribution were also considered, which included a cardboard 6-pack holder and cardboard

case (holds four 6-packs) and the associated ink and adhesive needs for labeling both pieces.

Kegged packaging consisted only of primary packaging, as they were not distributed outside

of the facility, which included stainless steel, ink, ink diluent, and the plastic ball for the keg

coupler. Electricity requirements for filling both primary packaging types was estimated at

0.00108 kWh per functional unit. Recycling is included in both datasets for the aluminum

can and the steel keg. While the aluminum cans are single use, they are fully recyclable.

Similarly, the steel keg can be reused indefinitely when cleaned and handled with care, has a

life expectancy of over 30 years, and is also 100% recyclable.

The baseline scenario distribution phase consists of both on and off-site hard apple cider

sales. On-site sales consist of pouring the hard apple cider from the keg into a glass, and

considers the water and detergents required to clean the serving glass. On-site distribution

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 97

also considers the water and detergents required to clean the keg for reuse, which were

estimated based on the data obtained which informed the production phase (Meneses et al.,

2016). We assume cellar keg storage remains at a palpable serving temperature, and therefore

have not included refrigeration or electricity in this model. Not included in this scenario are

the other amenities that would typically be associated with a tasting room, and focuses solely

on the requirements of the product. Off-site distribution consists of transporting the packaged

cans using a lightweight commercial vehicle (EcoInvent, v3) driving a distance of 100-miles

(160-km) (Smith & MacKinnon, 2007). Based on an average 2-ton cargo load capability, we

estimated the maximum carrying capacity of 200 cases of hard apple cider (4800 total units)

per delivery. Not included in this scenario are the refrigeration requirements and other

secondary expenditures associated with the distribution center sometimes used at the point of

sale.

2.3. LIFE CYCLE COST MODEL

The LCC model accounts for a lifetime of 30 years, including capital expenditure, fixed

costs, and operating costs for each phase of the life cycle. Results from the LCA model were

used as input parameters for the LCC model to calculate the social cost of emissions data.

The summary of cost inputs can be viewed in Table 3. 2. To account for present value, we

explored discount rates of 0%, 3%, and 5% using the formula 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃 (1 + 𝑟𝑟)𝐴𝐴

⁄ where PV

represents present value, FV represents future value, r represents the discount rate, and n

represents the amount of time in years.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 98

TABLE 3. 2. SUMMARY OF LIFE CYCLE COST INPUTS

Capital Costs

Value

Reference

Land acquisition

$5,690/acre

US Department of

Agriculture, 2019

Agricultural machinery

$35,000

Galinato et al., 2014

Trellis system

$2,262.87/acre

Galinato et al., 2014

Tree seedlings

$6.25/tree

Galinato et al., 2014

Pole barn + outfitting

$40,000

Galinato et al., 2014

Cider processing equipment

$94,000

OESCO, Inc., 2020

On-site packaging equipment

$6,540

Cydea, Inc., 2020

Off-site packaging equipment

$85,000

Cydea, Inc., 2020

On-site distribution supplies

$16,250

Cydea, Inc., 2020

Off-site distribution

equipment

$40,000

Commercial Truck Trader,

2020

Fixed costs

Land and property taxes

$90/acre/year

Galinato et al., 2014

Farm insurance

$50/acre/year

Galinato et al., 2014

LLC registration fees

$125 fee + $50/year

Cider production/licenses and

permits

$2,450/year

US Department of the

Treasury, 2019

Well water inspection

$500/5 years

US Department of

Environmental Protection,

2019

Operating costs

Orchard establishment (soil

preparation, compost,

pesticides, pruning, fuel)

$16,260/year years 1-3

Rodale Institute; Galinato et

al., 2014

Orchard management

(compost, pesticides, pruning,

fuel)

$23,716/year years 4-30

Rodale Institute; Galinato et

al., 2014

Electricity

$0.13/kwh

US Energy Information

Administration, 2020

Off-site packaging supplies

$144,583/year

Cydea, Inc., 2020

Fuel (distribution)

$2.38/gallon

US Energy Information

Administration, 2020

Hourly employee labor

$15.09/hr

US Department of

Agriculture, 2020

Manager salary

$85,570/yr

US Bureau of Labor

Statistics, 2019

Emissions costs

Carbon dioxide (CO

)

$42/metric ton

US Environmental Protection

Agency, 2016

Nitrous oxides (NO

)

$15,000/metric ton

US Environmental Protection

Agency, 2016

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 99

2.4. LCA-LCC SCENARIO ANALYSIS

The integrated LCA-LCC model explores five distribution scenarios. The baseline

scenario (S0) represents 50% on-site 50% off-site, scenario 1 (S1) represents 100% on-site

sales, scenario 2 (S2) represents 75% on-site 25% off-site, scenario 3 (S3) represents 25%

on-site 75% off-site, and scenario 4 (S4) represents 100% off-site. All on- and off-site

distribution are calculated based on the parameters described in the previous section. Each of

these scenarios were analyzed using both LCA and LCC models, such that the associated

emissions and costs (actual and social) are calculated and presented using the 12-fluid ounce

functional unit.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY

The resulting inventory for the inputs of the hard apple cider production system is shown

in Table 3. 3, with values related to the functional unit of one 12 fluid ounce serving.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 100

TABLE 3. 3. LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY

Phase

Input

Amount

Unit

Agricultural

Carbon dioxide

0.1523

Energy, in biomass

1.7285

Occupation, permanent crop, fruit

0.1567

m2a

Transformation, from permanent crop

0.0078

Transformation, to permanent crop

0.0078

Water

7.04E-10

Establishing Orchard

1.09E-03

Fruit tree seedling, for planting

1.09E-03

Mulching

7.78E-05

Planting tree

7.78E-05

Trellis system

1.56E-05

Compost

0.1753

Pesticides and Fungicides

4.69E-03

Packaging for insecticides

2.35E-07

Diesel, low-sulfur

1.29E-03

Transport, tractor and trailer

7.75E-04

tkm

Production

Water

0.8630

Electricity

0.1154

Yeast

1.64E-04

Cleaning and Sanitizing agents

0.1862

Packaging

Aluminum

0.0149

Steel

0.1056

Adhesive for label

1.54E-04

Ink

1.32E-06

Ink dilutent

4.93E-06

Label

3.6E-04

Can closure

3.8E-03

Plastic lock keg coupler

5.5E-05

Electricity

2.08E-03

Corrugated board

0.2449

Adhesive for board

0.0300

On-Site

Distribution

Glass

0.1889

Water, for cleaning

0.863

Cleaning and sanitizing agents

0.1084

Off-site

Distribution

Transport, lightweight commercial vehicle,

empty

0.1667

tkm

Transport, lightweight commercial vehicle,

full

0.3

tkm

End of Life

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 101

3.2. HARD APPLE CIDER PRODUCTION SYSTEM

The results of the impact assessment using a baseline distribution scenario of equivalent

on-site and off-site distribution of the final product can be found in Table 3. 4, while the

contribution analysis is visually depicted in Figure 3. 2. Overall, the agricultural phase has a

relatively low impact with the exception of that on land use, which is expected due to land

transformation requirements. A study by Goosens et al. (2017) investigated the

environmental impact of industrial conventional, integrated and organic orchards, and found

those systems to produce 0.075, 0.073 and 0.170 kg CO2 eq per kg of apples produced

respectively – nearly double the emissions of our localized organically managed system. The

production phase accounts for the largest impact on stratospheric ozone depletion, which is

largely attributed to the cleaning and sanitizing agents required for safe food processing.

Cimini & Moresi (2016) found that brewing beer produced an estimated 6.26 kg CO2 eq per

serving, which is substantially higher than our estimated emissions of cider production,

primarily due to the lower energy consumption requirements. As anticipated, packaging

shows the greatest impact in three areas of concern: water consumption, mineral resource

scarcity, and marine ecotoxicity. Impact on water consumption is primarily due to the water

required to process steel, the primary material for the keg packaging scenario. However, due

to the reuse value and relatively long life of kegs, they are still considered one of the most

eco-friendly packaging methods. Impact on mineral resource scarcity is due to the extraction

and processing of raw materials required to produce aluminum and steel for packaging

materials. Impact of water ecotoxicity is largely due to the can packaging scenario where the

aluminum accounts for approximately 40% of the overall impact in each category. While

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 102

these impacts are not to be ignored, aluminum cans have been identified as one of the least

detrimental single-use packaging forms for beverages. Glass bottles, while also a recyclable

option, have shown a much higher environmental impact than secondary aluminum cans in

previous studies (Cimini & Moresi, 2018). We see that off-site distribution accounts for the

greatest level of environmental contribution across most impact categories, associated with

the lightweight commercial vehicle emissions and diesel fuel use required for transporting

the product. On-site distribution also plays a role across many categories, primarily due to the

cleaning and sanitizing agents required for the safe service of consumable goods. Our model

presents a case of equal volume on- and off-site distribution, assuming the consumed hard

apple cider has an equal likelihood of being obtained either directly from the producer or at a

nearby retailer.

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 103

FIGURE 3. 2. CONTRIBUTION ANALYSIS - HARD APPLE CIDER PRODUCTION

SYSTEM

10.

20.

30.

40.

50.

60.

70.

80.

90.

100.

OFH

OFT

Analyzing Baseline Scenario (S0);

Method: ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) V1.04 / World (2010) H / Characterization

Off-Site Distribution

On-Site Distribution

Packaging Phase

Production Phase

Agricultural Phase

SUSTAINABILITY OF HARD APPLE CIDER 104

TABLE 3. 4. IMPACT ASSESSMENT RESULTS - HARD APPLE CIDER

PRODUCTION SYSTEM

Impact

Sustainability of Hard Apple Cider _ An Environmental and Socio

Students also viewed