IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/polpwa/343497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Level of Knowledge of Ukrainian Consumers Regarding Cows’ Welfare on Dairy Farms

Author

Listed:
  • Petkun, Hanna
  • Matryniuk, Oleksandr
  • Melnyk, Volodymyr
  • Nedosekov, Vitalii

Abstract

In modern society, consumers are very often the driving force of change. Therefore, it is important to understand and satisfy their needs. The purpose of the study was to identify modern Ukrainian consumers’ level of knowledge, interest and understanding of the importance of cows’ welfare on dairy farms, and to determine the willingness to pay a higher price for products from cows with a high level of welfare. The research was carried out through an online survey of representatives of Ukrainian consumers (n=2,345) between March and April 2023. Ukrainian consumers did not feel sufficiently informed on cows’ welfare, and most consumers had not come across welfare labelling and wanted to receive more information. Most Ukrainian consumers were ready to pay more (from 5 to 20%) for products from cows with a high level of welfare. Ukrainian consumers believed that the farmer has the greatest influence on welfare, and the consumers themselves have the least influence. Only 5% of consumers believe that government and legislation have a major impact on cows’ welfare. The respondents highly rated such parameters of welfare as sufficient space, adequate and high-quality feed, access to pastures, good relations with farm workers and expression of natural behaviour. We consider it important to increase the level of awareness of consumers in the field of animal welfare, to further develop a product certification scheme, and in the future to conduct a survey on awareness in the field of dairy herd welfare among Ukrainian farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Petkun, Hanna & Matryniuk, Oleksandr & Melnyk, Volodymyr & Nedosekov, Vitalii, 2024. "Assessing the Level of Knowledge of Ukrainian Consumers Regarding Cows’ Welfare on Dairy Farms," Problems of World Agriculture / Problemy Rolnictwa Światowego, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, vol. 24(2), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:polpwa:343497
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.343497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/343497/files/3_Petkun_kor%20EN-GB.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.343497?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. Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2009. "Bridging the gap between laboratory experiments and naturally occurring markets: An inferred valuation method," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 236-250, September.
    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. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    2. Xiong, Hang & Hu, Wuyang & Xu, Meng & Zhan, Jintao, 2024. "Revisiting heterogenous social desirability bias in consumer willingness to pay for food carbon label: Social norms and environmental concerns," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. Moon, DongWhoi & Wang, H. Holly & Hao, Na, 2023. "Consumer behavior in choosing microplastic contaminated seafood across different countries: The role of cultural and attitudinal factors," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 290-306.
    4. Peake, Whitney O. & Detre, Joshua D. & Carlson, Clinton C., 2014. "One bad apple spoils the bunch? An exploration of broad consumption changes in response to food recalls," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 13-22.
    5. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2018. "Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    6. Carlsson, Fredrik & Kataria, Mitesh, 2016. "How are you? How's it going? What's up? What's happening? Nudging people to tell us how they really are," Working Papers in Economics 649, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    7. Daniel Engler & Gunnar Gutsche & Andreas Ziegler, 2025. "Does the willingness to pay for sustainable investments differ between non-incentivized and incentivized choice experiments?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202515, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    8. Stachtiaris, Spiros & Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Klonaris, Stathis, "undated". "The "more is less" phenomenon in Contingent and Inferred valuation," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116013, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Guignet, Dennis, 2012. "The impacts of pollution and exposure pathways on home values: A stated preference analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 53-63.
    10. Kaczan, David & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, W.L. (Vic), 2013. "Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: An assessment of payment approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 20-30.
    11. Drichoutis, Andreas C. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Pappa, Valentina, 2016. "Elicitation formats and the WTA/WTP gap: A study of climate neutral foods," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-155.
    12. Raffaelli, R. & Menapace, L., 2018. "Indirect questioning as a debiasing mechanism in preference elicitation for sustainable food? First evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277039, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Frondel, Manuel & Sommer, Stephan & Tomberg, Lukas, 2019. "Versorgungssicherheit mit Strom: Empirische Evidenz auf Basis der Inferred-Valuation-Methode," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 68(1), pages 53-73.
    14. Wuepper, David & Clemm, Alexandra & Wree, Philipp, 2019. "The preference for sustainable coffee and a new approach for dealing with hypothetical bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 475-486.
    15. Menapace, Luisa & Raffaelli, Roberta, 2020. "Unraveling hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 416-430.
    16. Araña, Jorge E. & León, Carmelo J., 2013. "Dynamic hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments: Evidence from measuring the impact of corporate social responsibility on consumers demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 53-61.
    17. Hasan-Basri, Bakti & Mohd Mustafa, Muzafarshah & Bakar, Normizan, 2019. "Are Malaysian Consumers Willing to Pay for Hybrid Cars’ Attributes?," Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, Faculty of Economics and Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, vol. 53(1), pages 121-134.
    18. Mankaï, Selim & Marchand, Sébastien & Le, Ngoc Ha, 2024. "Valuing insurance against small probability risks: A meta-analysis," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    19. Torres-Miralles, M. & Grammatikopoulou, I. & Rescia, A.J., 2017. "Employing contingent and inferred valuation methods to evaluate the conservation of olive groves and associated ecosystem services in Andalusia (Spain)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 258-269.
    20. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:polpwa:343497. 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/wesggpl.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.