IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies


  • Clark, Beth
  • Stewart, Gavin B.
  • Panzone, Luca A.
  • Kyriazakis, Ilias
  • Frewer, Lynn J.


The sustainable intensification of animal production systems is increasing as a consequence of increased demand for foods originating from animals. Production diseases are particularly endemic in intensive production systems, and can negatively impact upon farm animal welfare. There is an increasing need to develop policies regarding animal production diseases, sustainable intensification, and animal welfare which incorporate consumer priorities as well as technical assessments of farm animal welfare. Consumers and/or citizens may have concerns about intensive production systems, and whether animal production disease represent a barrier to consumer acceptance of their increased use. There is a considerable body of research focused on consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for improved animal welfare. It is not clear how this relates specifically to a preference for reduced animal production disease incidence in animal production systems. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to establish the publics’ WTP for farm animal welfare, with a focus on production diseases which arise in intensive systems. Systematic review methodology combined with data synthesis was applied to integrate existing knowledge regarding consumer WTP for animal welfare, and reduced incidence of animal production diseases. Multiple databases were searched to identify relevant studies. A screening process, using a set of pre-determined inclusion criteria, identified 54 studies, with the strength of evidence and uncertainty for each study being assessed. A random effects meta-analysis was used to explore heterogeneity in relation to a number of factors, with a cumulative meta-analysis conducted to establish changes in WTP over time. The results indicated a small, positive WTP (0.63 standard deviations) for farm animal welfare varying in relation to a number of factors including animal type and region. Socio-demographic characteristics explained the most variation in the data. An evidence gap was highlighted in relation to reduced WTP for specific production diseases associated with the intensification of production, with only 4 of the 54 studies identified being related to this. A combination of market and government based policy solutions appears to be the best solution for improving farm animal welfare standards in the future, enabling the diverse public preferences to be taken into consideration.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:112-127
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    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

    1. Dickinson, David L. & Bailey, DeeVon, 2002. "Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing To Pay For It?," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 1-17, December.
    2. Harvey, David & Hubbard, Carmen, 2013. "Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-114.
    3. Cicia, Gianni & Colantuoni, Francesca, 2010. "Willingness to Pay for Traceable Meat Attributes: A Meta-analysis," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 1-12, October.
    4. Bennett, R. M., 1997. "Farm animal welfare and food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 281-288, August.
    5. Ikefuji, Masako & Laeven, Roger J.A. & Magnus, Jan R. & Muris, Chris, 2015. "Expected utility and catastrophic consumption risk," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 306-312.
    6. McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic & Nevison, Ian, 2006. "Public Preferences for Broiler Chicken Welfare: Evidence from Stated Preference Studies," Working Papers 45990, Scottish Agricultural College, Land Economy Research Group.
    7. 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.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    9. Hanley, Nick & Shogren, Jason & White, Ben, 2013. "Introduction to Environmental Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 2, number 9780199568734.
    10. 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.
    11. Kenneth W Clements & Jiawei Si, 2015. "More on the Price-Responsiveness of Food Consumption," Economics Discussion / Working Papers 15-03, The University of Western Australia, Department of Economics.
    12. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    13. Hongbin Li & Xinzheng Shi & Binzhen Wu, 2015. "The Retirement Consumption Puzzle in China," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 437-441, May.
    14. Ingenbleek, Paul T.M. & Immink, Victor M. & Spoolder, Hans A.M. & Bokma, Martien H. & Keeling, Linda J., 2012. "EU animal welfare policy: Developing a comprehensive policy framework," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 690-699.
    15. 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, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 34(3), pages 321-344, September.
    16. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    17. McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic & Nevison, Ian, 2006. "Public Preferences for Broiler Chicken Welfare: Evidence from Stated Preference Studies," Working Papers 45990, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    18. Juan Carlos Carbajal & Jonathan Hall & Hongyi Li, 2015. "Inconspicuous Conspicuous Consumption," Working Papers 2015-38, Peruvian Economic Association.
    19. Zingg, Alexandra & Siegrist, Michael, 2012. "People’s willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against epidemics," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 226-231.
    20. Richard Bennett, 1995. "The Value Of Farm Animal Welfare," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 46-60.
    21. Chang, Jae Bong & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2010. "The Price of Happy Hens: A Hedonic Analysis of Retail Egg Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 1-18, December.
    22. T. D. Stanley, 2001. "Wheat from Chaff: Meta-analysis as Quantitative Literature Review," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(3), pages 131-150, Summer.
    23. Ministry of Statistics and Prog Implementation (MOSPI), 2015. "Key Indicators of Social Consumption in India Health," Working Papers id:7118, eSocialSciences.
    24. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639, April.
    25. Ryan, Anthony M. & Spash, Clive L., 2011. "Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 674-687.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. repec:ags:ifaamr:274990 is not listed on IDEAS


    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:68:y:2017:i:c:p:112-127. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.