IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iefi12/144963.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Holistic Approach to Consumer Research on Expectations Regarding Animal Husbandry

Author

Listed:
  • Christoph, Inken B.
  • Buergelt, Doreen
  • Salamon, Petra
  • Weible, Daniela
  • Zander, Katrin

Abstract

Based on existing literature this paper reviews expectations of consumers, producers, other interest groups and citizens with respect to animal welfare and animal husbandry and indicates knowledge gaps as well. Findings enable us to develop a holistic research approach to analyse consumers’ and other interest groups’ preferences, expectations and concerns as well as requests of citizens. In order to reduce the gap between different perspectives regarding modern animal husbandry, these results will be used to improve communication between farmers and consumers or the society, respectively. It will facilitate the necessary integration of social concerns in the development of animal husbandry systems. An interdisciplinary network of researchers is aimed at.

Suggested Citation

  • Christoph, Inken B. & Buergelt, Doreen & Salamon, Petra & Weible, Daniela & Zander, Katrin, 2012. "A Holistic Approach to Consumer Research on Expectations Regarding Animal Husbandry," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144963, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iefi12:144963
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.144963
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/144963/files/22-Christoph.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.144963?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. Laura Mørch Andersen, 2011. "Animal Welfare and Eggs – Cheap Talk or Money on the Counter?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 565-584, September.
    2. Kathleen Brooks & Jayson L. Lusk, 2010. "Stated and Revealed Preferences for Organic and Cloned Milk: Combining Choice Experiment and Scanner Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1229-1241.
    3. Boehm, Justus & Kayser, Maike & Spiller, Achim, 2010. "Two Sides of the Same Coin? Analysis of the Web-Based Social Media with Regard to the Image of the Agri-Food Sector in Germany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 1(3), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & Kathleen Brooks, 2010. "Who Participates in Household Scanning Panels?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(1), pages 226-240.
    5. 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)

    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. Richard Friberg & Mark Sanctuary, 2018. "Market stealing and market expansion: an examination of product introductions in the organic coffee market," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 287-303, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Salamon, Petra & Weible, Daniela, 2015. "What is the benefit of organically-reared dairy cattle? Societal perception towards conventional and organic dairy farming," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206236, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    4. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2015. "What Happens When Food Marketers Require Restrictive Farming Practices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1021-1043.
    5. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Purwins, Nina & Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit, 2018. "Improving market success of animal welfare programs through key stakeholder involvement: heading towards responsible innovation?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(4).
    7. Christoph-Schulz, Inken & Salamon, Petra & Weible, Daniela, 2015. "What is the benefit of organically-reared dairy cattle? Societal perception towards conventional and organic dairy farming," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 6(3), pages 1-8, July.
    8. Su, Lianfan & Adam, Brian D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Arthur, Frank, 2011. "A Comparison of Auction and Choice Experiment: An Application to Consumer Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Storage Management," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103975, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Friedrich, Nina & Heyder, Matthias & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2012. "Sustainability Management in Agribusiness: Challenges, Concepts, Responsibilities and Performance," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144979, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. Lepping Rebecca J. & Papa Vlad B. & Martin Laura E., 2015. "Cognitive Neuroscience Perspectives on Food Decision-Making: A Brief Introduction," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 5-14, January.
    11. Schroeter, Christiane & Cai, Xiaowei, 2011. "It’s All About Produce: Flexing the Muscles of Western U.S. Organic Spinach Consumption," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13.
    12. Chen, Kee-Kuo & Ho, Hui-Ping & Chang, Ching-Ter, 2015. "Estimating attributes importance for container shipping industry by closing the listening gap with maximum convergent validity," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 145-163.
    13. Schuster, Monica & Vranken, Liesbet & Maertens, Miet, 2017. "You Can(’t) Always Get the Job You Want: Stated versus Revealed Employment Preferences in the Peruvian Agro-industry," Working Papers 254076, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    14. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Xiang Wu & Bin Hu & Jie Xiong, 2020. "Understanding Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences in Chinese Milk Markets: A Latent Class Approach," Post-Print hal-02489646, HAL.
    16. 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.
    17. Vanessa von Schlippenbach & Isabel Teichmann, 2012. "The Strategic Use of Private Quality Standards in Food Supply Chains," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1189-1201.
    18. Jo, Jisung & Lusk, Jayson L. & Muller, Laurent & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2016. "Value of parsimonious nutritional information in a framed field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 124-133.
    19. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    20. Katherine Fuller & Carola Grebitus, 2023. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for coffee sustainability labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1007-1025, October.

    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:iefi12:144963. 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/ilbonde.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.