IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/iepeoa/200512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes Toward Farm Animals Welfare And Consumer’S Buying Intentions - Case Of Serbia

Author

Listed:
  • Veljković, Saša
  • Stojanović, Žaklina
  • Filipović, Jelena

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine consumers’ perception of the products considering animal welfare and to establish the factors which affect consumers’ willingness to pay the premium price for the animal-friendly products. In addition, four consumers’ profiles according to their attitudes towards farm animals’ welfare are distinguished and their features are elaborated. The research has been undertaken in Belgrade, comprising 198 participants. The face-to-face interview technique has been adopted, while for the analysis of the results regression and cluster analyses have been performed. The findings suggest that food sector stakeholders should put more efforts in providing information and education to the consumers regarding the importance of animal welfare and that there is a significant market potential for the introduction of the label for animal-friendly products. The implications for policy makers are proposed and discussed too.

Suggested Citation

  • Veljković, Saša & Stojanović, Žaklina & Filipović, Jelena, 2015. "Attitudes Toward Farm Animals Welfare And Consumer’S Buying Intentions - Case Of Serbia," Economics of Agriculture, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(1), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iepeoa:200512
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.200512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/200512/files/4%20EP%201%202015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.200512?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kehlbacher, A. & Bennett, R. & Balcombe, K., 2012. "Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 627-633.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eva Tebbe & Korbinian von Blanckenburg, 2018. "Does willingness to pay increase with the number and strictness of sustainability labels?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(1), pages 41-53, January.
    2. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Ramona Weinrich & Annabell Franz & Achim Spiller, 2016. "Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 18(2), pages 155-172.
    4. Uehleke, Reinhard & Hüttel, Silke, 2016. "The Hypothetical Free-Rider Deficit In The Demand For Farm Animal Welfare Labeled Meat," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244866, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    5. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    6. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Carlucci, Domenico & De Devitiis, Biagia & Seccia, Antonio & Stasi, Antonio & Viscecchia, Rosaria & Nardone, Gianluca, 2017. "Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry," MPRA Paper 82105, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Weinrich, Ramona & Kühl, Sarah & Zühlsdorf, Anke & Spiller, Achim, 2014. "Consumer Attitudes in Germany towards Different Dairy Housing Systems and Their Implications for the Marketing of Pasture Raised Milk," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, November.
    8. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    9. Heise, Heinke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "What do consumers think about farm animal welfare in modern agriculture? Attitudes and shopping behaviour," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 20(3), November.
    10. Francesca Gerini & Frode Alfnes & Alexander Schjøll, 2016. "Organic- and Animal Welfare-labelled Eggs: Competing for the Same Consumers?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 471-490, June.
    11. Jessica Bosseaux & Philippe Aurier & Alain François-Heude, 2019. "The official quality signs influence on prices and volumes: the case of organic fresh eggs [L’influence du label Bio sur les prix et les ventes : Le cas des oeufs]," Post-Print hal-03079779, HAL.
    12. Rovers, Anja & Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Brümmer, Nanke & Saggau, Doreen, 2017. "Trust no One? Citizens’ Concerns regarding the Pork and Dairy Supply Chain," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    13. Alexander J. Stein & Marcelo Lima, 2022. "Sustainable food labelling: considerations for policy-makers," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(2), pages 143-160, June.
    14. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    15. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    16. Weinrich, Ramona & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Developing food labelling strategies with the help of extremeness aversion," DARE Discussion Papers 1511, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    17. Schulte, Hinrich D. & Armbrecht, Linda & Bürger, Rasmus & Gauly, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver & Hüttel, Silke, 2018. "Let the cows graze: An empirical investigation on the trade-off between efficiency and farm animal welfare in milk production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 375-385.
    18. Inken Christoph-Schulz & Anja-Karolina Rovers, 2020. "German Citizens’ Perception of Fattening Pig Husbandry—Evidence from a Mixed Methods Approach," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    19. Rovers, Anja & Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Brümmer, Nanke & Saggau, Doreen, 2017. "Trust no One? Citizens’ Concerns regarding the Pork and Dairy Supply Chain," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276893, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    20. More, S.J. & Marchewka, J. & Hanlon, A. & Balzani, A. & Boyle, L., 2021. "An evaluation of four private animal health and welfare standards and associated quality assurance programmes for dairy cow production," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iepeoa:200512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iepbgyu.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.