IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/erevae/v49y2022i2p499-525..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use and non-use values to explain farmers’ motivation for the provision of animal welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Enoch Owusu-Sekyere
  • Helena Hansson
  • Evgenij Telezhenko

Abstract

This paper examines how differences in motivation in terms of use and non-use values affect the choice of animal welfare improvement practices. The application is focused on Swedish dairy farmers’ preferences for different flooring systems’ attributes. Using multiple indicators and multiple causes and hybrid latent class models, the findings demonstrate that dairy farmers who favour flooring solutions that enhance farm animal welfare are motivated by a complex set of both use values relating to internal and external pressures and non-use values linked to animal freedom, ethical codes of farmers and building business-to-customer relationships. The findings imply that measures to stimulate more uptake of animal welfare improvement practices can be better targeted by using insights into motivational constructs of farmers and by adopting policy communication that captures the whole breadth of use and non-use motivational constructs held by farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Enoch Owusu-Sekyere & Helena Hansson & Evgenij Telezhenko, 2022. "Use and non-use values to explain farmers’ motivation for the provision of animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(2), pages 499-525.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:erevae:v:49:y:2022:i:2:p:499-525.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/erae/jbab012
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Ika Darnhofer & Walter Schneeberger & Bernhard Freyer, 2005. "Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria:Farmer types and their rationale," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 22(1), pages 39-52, March.
    2. Peter Howley, 2015. "The Happy Farmer: The Effect of Nonpecuniary Benefits on Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1072-1086.
    3. Joffre Swait & Cristiano Franceschinis & Mara Thiene, 2020. "Antecedent Volition and Spatial Effects: Can Multiple Goal Pursuit Mitigate Distance Decay?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(2), pages 243-270, February.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2012. "Speciesism, altruism and the economics of animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 39(2), pages 189-212, April.
    5. Gazali Issahaku & Awudu Abdulai, 2020. "Adoption of climate‐smart practices and its impact on farm performance and risk exposure among smallholder farmers in Ghana," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(2), pages 396-420, April.
    6. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Helena Hansson & Sebastian Hess & Ruben Hoffman, 2011. "Provision of Farm Animal Welfare: Integrating Productivity and Non-Use Values," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 484-509.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    8. Muhammad Bello & Awudu Abdulai, 2018. "The use of a hybrid latent class approach to identify consumer segments and market potential for organic products in Nigeria," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 190-203, March.
    9. F. Bailey Norwood & Jayson L. Lusk, 2011. "Social Desirability Bias in Real, Hypothetical, and Inferred Valuation Experiments," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(2), pages 528-534.
    10. David Romer, 2006. "Do Firms Maximize? Evidence from Professional Football," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 114(2), pages 340-365, April.
    11. 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.
    12. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Bhanu Patruni & Dimitris Potoglou & Charlene Rohr, 2012. "Using ordered attitudinal indicators in a latent variable choice model: a study of the impact of security on rail travel behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 267-297, March.
    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. Ufer, Danielle J. & Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A. & McKendree, Melissa & Swanson, Janice, 2022. "Getting past the gatekeeper: Key motivations of dairy farmer intent to adopt animal health and welfare-improving biotechnology," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    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. Enoch Owusu-Sekyere & Awudu Abdulai & Henry Jordaan & Helena Hansson, 2020. "Heterogeneous demand for ecologically sustainable products on ensuring environmental sustainability in South Africa," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(1), pages 39-64, January.
    2. Leduc, Gaëlle & Billaudet, Larissa & Engström, Ebba & Hansson, Helena & Ryan, Mary, 2023. "Farmers' perceived values in conventional and organic farming: A comparison between French, Irish and Swedish farmers using the Means-end chain approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    3. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    5. David Boto‐García & Antonio Alvarez & José Baños, 2021. "Modelling heterogeneous preferences for nature‐based tourism trips," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(6), pages 1625-1653, December.
    6. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    7. 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).
    8. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    9. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato & Federico Nassivera & Maria Bugatti & Biancamaria Torquati, 2019. "Consumers Demand for Social Farming Products: An Analysis with Discrete Choice Experiments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Peter Howley & Neel Ocean, 2022. "Can nudging only get you so far? Testing for nudge combination effects [Social norms and energy conservation]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 1086-1112.
    11. 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.
    12. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    13. Wen Lin, 2023. "The effect of product quantity on willingness to pay: A meta‐regression analysis of beef valuation studies," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 646-663, July.
    14. Kristine Pakalniete & Juris Aigars & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Solvita Strake & Ewa Zawojska & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Understanding the distribution of economic benefits from improving coastal and marine ecosystems," Working Papers 2016-26, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    15. 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.
    16. Kent D. Messer & Marco Costanigro & Harry M. Kaiser, 2017. "Labeling Food Processes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 407-427.
    17. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    18. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    19. Erpeng Wang & Zhifeng Gao, 2017. "Chinese Consumer Quality Perception and Preference of Traditional Sustainable Rice Produced by the Integrated Rice–Fish System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Valerie Kilders & Vincenzina Caputo, 2021. "Is Animal Welfare Promoting Hornless Cattle? Assessing Consumer’s Valuation for Milk from Gene‐edited Cows under Different Information Regimes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 735-759, 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:oup:erevae:v:49:y:2022:i:2:p:499-525.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.