IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v188y2021ics0921800921001750.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consumers' knowledge and perceptions of endangered livestock breeds: How wording influences conservation efforts

Author

Listed:
  • Menger, Anna Katharina
  • Hamm, Ulrich

Abstract

Although consumer demand plays a key role in the conservation of endangered livestock breeds (also referred to as old, local, rare or heritage breeds), consumer research so far has made only a minor contribution to such conservation. Based on a qualitative consumer study using think-aloud-protocols, this article sheds light on consumers' knowledge and perceptions regarding endangered livestock breeds and provides recommendations to improve product communication. The findings include that only half of the participants were aware of the endangerment of livestock breed diversity. While brochures used as stimuli succeeded to motivate the informed participants to support breed conservation through their consumption, the uninformed participants exhibited difficulties in understanding the concept of endangered farm animal breeds. Many misattributed the cause of endangerment to consumer demand for the products of these breeds, influenced by a false analogy with wildlife extinction. These participants objected to the idea of consuming products from any endangered animal and thus were unwilling to support the conservation of rare farm animal breeds through their consumption behaviour. As a result, neither the endangerment nor their currently low population figures should be presented in consumer communication. To support product sales, the exceptional taste of these heritage breeds should be emphasised.

Suggested Citation

  • Menger, Anna Katharina & Hamm, Ulrich, 2021. "Consumers' knowledge and perceptions of endangered livestock breeds: How wording influences conservation efforts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:188:y:2021:i:c:s0921800921001750
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921001750
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107117?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aziz Fadlaoui & Jutta Roosen & Philippe V. Baret, 2006. "Setting priorities in farm animal conservation choices--expert opinion and revealed policy preferences," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(2), pages 173-192, June.
    2. Mendelsohn, Robert, 2003. "The challenge of conserving indigenous domesticated animals," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 501-510, July.
    3. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2015. "Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-10.
    4. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    5. Tisdell, Clem, 2003. "Socioeconomic causes of loss of animal genetic diversity: analysis and assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 365-376, July.
    6. Katriina Soini & Eija Pouta & Terhi Latvala & Taina Lilja, 2019. "Agrobiodiversity Products in Alternative Food System: Case of Finnish Native Cattle Breeds," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, June.
    7. Narloch, Ulf & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai, 2011. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1837-1845, September.
    8. Azucena Gracia, 2014. "Consumers’ preferences for a local food product: a real choice experiment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 111-128, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel, Carole & Gentina, Elodie & Kaur, Tavleen, 2023. "Mindfulness and green purchase intention: A mediated moderation model uncovering the role of ethical self-identity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    2. Martha Tampaki & Georgia Koutouzidou & Athanasios Ragkos & Katerina Melfou & Ioannis A. Giantsis, 2022. "Eco-Value and Public Perceptions for Indigenous Farm Animal Breeds and Local Plant Varieties, Focusing on Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-16, September.

    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. Leonardo Cei & Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Francesco Pagliacci, 2023. "Pay more for me, I’m from the mountains! The role of the EU Mountain Product term and other credence attributes in consumers’ valuation of lamb meat," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Elsa Varela & Zein Kallas, 2022. "Societal preferences for the conservation of traditional pig breeds and their agroecosystems: Addressing preference heterogeneity and protest responses through deterministic allocation and scale‐exten," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 761-788, September.
    3. Varela, Elsa & Kallas, Zein, 2022. "Extensive Mediterranean agroecosystems and their linked traditional breeds: Societal demand for the conservation of the Majorcan black pig," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    4. Ahtiainen, Heini & Tienhaara, Annika & Pouta, Eija & Czajkowski, Mikolaj, 2017. "Role of information in the valuation of unfamiliar goods – the case of genetic resources in agriculture," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261423, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Nuno V. Brito & Júlio Cesar Lopes & Virgínia Ribeiro & Rui Dantas & José V. Leite, 2021. "Small Scale Egg Production: The Challenge of Portuguese Autochthonous Chicken Breeds," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-13, August.
    6. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2015. "Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-10.
    7. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    8. Tisdell, Clem, 2011. "Biodiversity conservation, loss of natural capital and interest rates," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2511-2515.
    9. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    10. Clement A. Tisdell, 2014. "Sustainable agriculture," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 32, pages 517-531, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Pascual, Unai & Narloch, Ulf & Nordhagen, Stella & Drucker, Adam G., 2011. "The economics of agrobiodiversity conservation for food security under climate change," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(01), pages 1-30, November.
    12. Lucia Rocchi & Antonio Boggia & Luisa Paolotti, 2020. "Sustainable Agricultural Systems: A Bibliometrics Analysis of Ecological Modernization Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    14. Isbell, Carina & Tobin, Daniel & Reynolds, Travis, 2021. "Motivations for maintaining crop diversity: Evidence from Vermont's seed systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    15. Anna Kasprzyk & Alina Walenia, 2023. "Native Pig Breeds as a Source of Biodiversity—Breeding and Economic Aspects," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-30, July.
    16. Samuel, Aurelia F. & Drucker, Adam G. & Andersen, Sven B. & Simianer, Henner & van Zonneveld, Maarten, 2013. "Development of a cost-effective diversity-maximising decision-support tool for in situ crop genetic resources conservation: The case of cacao," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 155-164.
    17. Tisdell, Clement A., 2012. "Biodiversity Change and Sustainable Development: New Perspectives," Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 125211, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
    18. Alessio Ilari & Sara Fabrizi & Ester Foppa Pedretti, 2022. "European Hophornbeam Biomass for Energy Application: Influence of Different Production Processes and Heating Devices on Environmental Sustainability," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, January.
    19. Halimani, T.E. & Muchadeyi, F.C. & Chimonyo, M. & Dzama, K., 2010. "Pig genetic resource conservation: The Southern African perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 944-951, March.
    20. Clem Tisdell, 2005. "Linking Policies For Biodiversity Conservation With Advances In Behavioral Economics," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 50(spec0), pages 449-462.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:188:y:2021:i:c:s0921800921001750. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.