IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v49y2014ip1p174-185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneity in consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems

Author

Listed:
  • de Jonge, Janneke
  • van Trijp, Hans

Abstract

Animal welfare-based product differentiation through private sector initiatives has led to the introduction of ‘compromise’ meat products, which are produced at beyond regulatory standards for animal welfare, but are cheaper than organic meat. A variety of production system characteristics serve as parameters to achieve higher animal welfare standards. Food policies will be more effective if they position compromise products on those production system characteristics that really matter to (segments of) consumers. The present study identifies that three market segments may be discerned; one that takes a more inclusive perspective on animal welfare, and two that take a more heuristic approach by viewing animal friendliness from a more uni-dimensional perspective (animal space vs. slaughter method). These segments do not only differ in their perception of animal welfare, but also regarding their background characteristics. An interesting finding of the research is that the different segments accord in their perceptions of overall animal welfare levels, but do so for different reasons. In terms of food policy implications this means that the further development of compromise products would benefit from communicating more specific information on animal space and slaughter method, in addition to the overall star-based animal welfare classification. Such communication would serve well to both 50% of the market that takes a more balanced and integrated view on animal welfare and the other half of the market that takes a more uni-dimensional perspective (space vs. slaughter method).

Suggested Citation

  • de Jonge, Janneke & van Trijp, Hans, 2014. "Heterogeneity in consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 174-185.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:49:y:2014:i:p1:p:174-185
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919214001262
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.008?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. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    2. Claudia Townsend & Barbara E. Kahn, 2014. "The "Visual Preference Heuristic": The Influence of Visual versus Verbal Depiction on Assortment Processing, Perceived Variety, and Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(5), pages 993-1015.
    3. Frits Zegers & Jos Berge, 1985. "A family of association coefficients for metric scales," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 17-24, March.
    4. Fulponi, Linda, 2006. "Private voluntary standards in the food system: The perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-13, February.
    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. Gocsik, Éva & Brooshooft, Suzanne D. & de Jong, Ingrid C. & Saatkamp, Helmut W., 2016. "Cost-efficiency of animal welfare in broiler production systems: A pilot study using the Welfare Quality® assessment protocol," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 55-69.
    2. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    3. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Apostolidis, Chrysostomos & McLeay, Fraser, 2016. "Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 74-89.
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & Kennedy O. Pambo & Victor O. Owino, 2015. "Consumer acceptance and willingness to pay for edible insects as food in Kenya: the case of white winged termites," IFRO Working Paper 2015/10, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Pirsich, Wiebke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2017. "The Pet Food Industry: An Innovative Distribution Channel for Animal Welfare Meat?," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276914, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Mantovani, Danielle & Tazima, Deborah Iuri, 2016. "Arte visual e foco regulatório na avaliação dos consumidores," RAE - Revista de Administração de Empresas, FGV-EAESP Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (Brazil), vol. 56(2), March.
    4. Latouche, Karine & Rouviere, Elodie, 2011. "Brokers vs. Retailers: Evidence from the French Imports Industry of Fresh Produce," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114398, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. E. Rouvière & K. Latouche, 2014. "Impact of liability rules on modes of coordination for food safety in supply chains," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 111-130, February.
    6. Belton, Ben & Haque, Mohammad Mahfujul & Little, David C. & Sinh, Le Xuan, 2011. "Certifying catfish in Vietnam and Bangladesh: Who will make the grade and will it matter?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 289-299, April.
    7. Codron, Jean-Marie & Adanacioğlu, Hakan & Aubert, Magali & Bouhsina, Zouhair & El Mekki, Abdelkader Ait & Rousset, Sylvain & Tozanli, Selma & Yercan, Murat, 2014. "The role of market forces and food safety institutions in the adoption of sustainable farming practices: The case of the fresh tomato export sector in Morocco and Turkey," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 268-280.
    8. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Cristina Grazia & Abdelhakim Hammoudi, 2012. "Explaining the Emergence of Private Standards in Food Supply Chains," Working Papers hal-00749345, HAL.
    11. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    12. Niemi, Jarkko K. & Sinisalo, Alina & Valros, Anna & Heinonen, Mari, 2012. "Market and policy-oriented incentives to provide animal welfare: The case of tail biting," 126th Seminar, June 27-29, 2012, Capri, Italy 125957, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. 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.
    14. Fan, Xiaojun & Chai, Zeli & Deng, Nianqi & Dong, Xuebing, 2020. "Adoption of augmented reality in online retailing and consumers’ product attitude: A cognitive perspective," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    15. J. Wouters & A. Marx & N. Hachez, 2012. "Public and Private Food Safety Standards and International Trade Law. How to Build a Balanced Relationship," Chapters, in: Axel Marx & Miet Maertens & Johan Swinnen & Jan Wouters (ed.), Private Standards and Global Governance, chapter 10, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Herzfeld, Thomas & Drescher, Larissa S. & Grebitus, Carola, 2011. "Cross-national adoption of private food quality standards," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 36(3), pages 401-411.
    17. Vivek Soundararajan & Jill A. Brown, 2016. "Voluntary Governance Mechanisms in Global Supply Chains: Beyond CSR to a Stakeholder Utility Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 83-102, March.
    18. Dela-Dem Doe Fiankor & Insa Flachsbarth & Amjad Masood & Bernhard Brümmer, 2020. "Does GlobalGAP certification promote agrifood exports? [Standards as barriers versus standards as catalysts: assessing the impact of HACCP implementation on US seafood imports]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 47(1), pages 247-272.
    19. Julia Behringer & Peter H. Feindt, 2019. "How Shall We Judge Agri-Food Governance? Legitimacy Constructions in Food Democracy and Co-Regulation Discourses," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 119-130.
    20. Morgane Millet & Valerie Keast & Stefano Gonano & François Casabianca, 2020. "Product Qualification as a Means of Identifying Sustainability Pathways for Place-Based Agri-Food Systems: The Case of the GI Corsican Grapefruit (France)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-22, September.

    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:jfpoli:v:49:y:2014:i:p1:p:174-185. 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/foodpol .

    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.