IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2011i7p1325-1335.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Willingness to pay for other species' well-being

Author

Listed:
  • Naald, Brian Vander
  • Cameron, Trudy Ann

Abstract

Benefit-cost analysis of environmental policies typically focuses on benefits to human health and well-being. For other species, economists have attempted to measure human WTP for changes in the numbers of individuals for different types of wildlife, and to preserve biodiversity. When it comes to humans' WTP for improvements in the quality-of-life for other species, however, the evidence is limited. Morbidity and quality-of-life considerations may be particularly important to the task of valuing non-fatal harm to wildlife in the wake of an environmental disaster. We argue that the other species morbidity-reduction component of WTP should be calculated net of any "outrage" component associated with the cause of the harm. This net WTP is likely to be correlated with the premium that people are willing to pay for chicken products from birds for which the quality-of-life has been enhanced by improved animal welfare measures. This paper uses a conjoint choice stated preference survey to reveal the nature of systematic heterogeneity in preferences for "humanely raised" versus "conventionally raised" chicken. We also use latent class analysis to distinguish between two classes of people--those who are willing to pay a premium for humanely raised chicken, and those who are not.

Suggested Citation

  • Naald, Brian Vander & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2011. "Willingness to pay for other species' well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1325-1335, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:7:p:1325-1335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(11)00016-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Eiswerth, Mark E. & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2009. "The ghost of extinction: Preservation values and minimum viable population in wildlife models," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2129-2136, May.
    2. Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster & Jayson L. Lusk, 2006. "Marketing Opportunities for Certified Pork Chops," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 567-583, December.
    3. Chilton, Susan M. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George, 2006. "The relative value of farm animal welfare," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 353-363, September.
    4. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    5. Farina, Tatiana M.Q. & de Almeida, Silvia F., 2003. "Consumer Perception On Alternative Poultry," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 5(2), pages 1-11.
    6. Goodland, Robert, 1997. "Environmental sustainability in agriculture: diet matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 189-200, December.
    7. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    8. Bateman, Ian J. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George & Matthews, David I., 2008. "Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 127-141, March.
    9. Rigby, Dan & Woodhouse, Phil & Young, Trevor & Burton, Michael, 2001. "Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 463-478, December.
    10. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 34(3), pages 321-344, September.
    11. Daniel Burghart & Trudy Cameron & Geoffrey Gerdes, 2007. "Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: Risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 77-105, August.
    12. Van Passel, Steven & Nevens, Frank & Mathijs, Erik & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2007. "Measuring farm sustainability and explaining differences in sustainable efficiency," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 149-161, April.
    13. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John, 2009. "The total economic value of threatened, endangered and rare species: An updated meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1535-1548, March.
    14. Douadia Bougherara & Pierre Combris, 2009. "Eco-labelled food products: what are consumers paying for?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(3), pages 321-341, September.
    15. Bennett, Richard & Blaney, Ralph, 2002. "Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 501-520, August.
    16. Bennett, R. M., 1997. "Farm animal welfare and food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 281-288, August.
    17. Grunert, Klaus G. & Bech-Larsen, Tino, 2005. "Explaining choice option attractiveness by beliefs elicited by the laddering method," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 223-241, April.
    18. Johnston, Robert J. & Roheim, Cathy A. & Donath, Holger & Asche, Frank, 2001. "Measuring Consumer Preferences For Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-20, July.
    19. Bennett, Richard M. & Blaney, Ralph J. P., 2003. "Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 85-98, July.
    20. Wilson, Clevo & Tisdell, Clem, 2001. "Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 449-462, December.
    21. Frank, Joshua, 2008. "Is there an "animal welfare Kuznets curve"?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 478-491, June.
    22. Bruno Larue & Gale E. West & Carole Gendron & Rémy Lambert, 2004. "Consumer response to functional foods produced by conventional, organic, or genetic manipulation," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 155-166.
    23. Balcombe, Kelvin & Chalak, Ali & Fraser, Iain, 2009. "Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 226-237, March.
    24. Carolina Liljenstolpe, 2008. "Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 67-84.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    RePEc Biblio mentions

    As found on the RePEc Biblio, the curated bibliography for Economics:
    1. > Environmental and Natural Resource Economics > Environmental Economics > Valuation > Choice experiments and conjoint analyses

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Bryant & Ronald Paul Hill, 2019. "Poverty, consumption, and counterintuitive behavior," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 233-243, December.
    2. Jennifer Porter & David Conner & Jane Kolodinsky & Amy Trubek, 2017. "Get real: an analysis of student preference for real food," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 921-932, December.
    3. Davidson, Marc D., 2013. "On the relation between ecosystem services, intrinsic value, existence value and economic valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 171-177.
    4. Boerema, Annelies & Schoelynck, Jonas & Bal, Kris & Vrebos, Dirk & Jacobs, Sander & Staes, Jan & Meire, Patrick, 2014. "Economic valuation of ecosystem services, a case study for aquatic vegetation removal in the Nete catchment (Belgium)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 46-56.
    5. 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.
    6. Suzanne van Osch & Stephen Hynes & Shirra Freeman & Tim O’Higgins, 2019. "Estimating the Public’s Preferences for Sustainable Aquaculture: A Country Comparison," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-24, January.
    7. Hyo-Jin Kim & Se-Jun Jin & Seung-Hoon Yoo, 2018. "Public Assessment of Releasing a Captive Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin into the Wild in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-8, 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. Lombardini, Chiara & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kulmala, Soile & Lindroos, Marko, 2011. "Is there a Finnish Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114379, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    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. Loureiro, Maria L. & Gracia, Azucena & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Do experimental auction estimates pass the scope test?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 7-17.
    4. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    5. Yang, Yu-Chen, 2018. "Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to pay for animal welfare eggs in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    6. 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.
    7. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 80-94, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Blemings, Benjamin & Zhang, Peilu & Neill, Clinton L., 2023. "Where is the value? The impacts of sow gestation crate laws on pork supply and consumer value perceptions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    10. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    11. Doris Läpple & Osayanmon Wellington Osawe, 2023. "Concern for animals, other farmers, or oneself? Assessing farmers' support for a policy to improve animal welfare," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(3), pages 836-860, May.
    12. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    13. Carolina Liljenstolpe, 2008. "Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 67-84.
    14. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    15. Frédéric Salladarré & Dorothée Brécard & Sterenn Lucas & Pierrick Ollivier, 2016. "Are French consumers ready to pay a premium for eco-labeled seafood products? A contingent valuation estimation with heterogeneous anchoring," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 247-258, March.
    16. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    17. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    18. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    19. Boyle, Glenn, 2008. "The Dog That Doesn't Bark: Animal Interests in Economics," Working Paper Series 4017, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    20. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.

    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:70:y:2011:i:7:p:1325-1335. 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.