IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/apecpp/v32y2010i2p275-297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Nocella
  • Lionel Hubbard
  • Riccardo Scarpa

Abstract

Higher animal welfare standards increase costs along the supply chain of certified animal-friendly products (AFP). Since the market outcome of certified AFP depends on consumer confidence toward supply chain operators complying with these standards, the role of trust in consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for AFP is paramount. Results from a contingent valuation survey administered in five European Union countries show that WTP estimates were sensitive to robust measures of consumer trust for certified AFP. Deriving the WTP effect of a single food category on total food expenditure is difficult for survey respondents; hence, a budget approach was employed to facilitate this process. Copyright 2010, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:apecpp:v:32:y:2010:i:2:p:275-297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/aepp/ppp009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Atakelty Hailu & Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall, 2000. "Complements, Substitutes, Budget Constraints and Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, pages 51-68.
    2. Alberini Anna, 1995. "Efficiency vs Bias of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates: Bivariate and Interval-Data Models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 169-180, September.
    3. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    4. 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, pages 321-344.
    5. Richard Bennett & Douglas Larson, 1996. "Contingent Valuation Of The Perceived Benefits Of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Exploratory Survey," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1-4), pages 224-235.
    6. Bennett, Richard & Blaney, Ralph, 2002. "Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, pages 501-520.
    7. Lynn, Peter, 2001. "Developing quality standard for cross-national survey research: five approaches," ISER Working Paper Series 2001-21, Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    8. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 715-719.
    9. 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, September.
    10. Riccardo Scarpa & Ian Bateman, 2000. "Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, pages 299-311.
    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. Weinrich, Ramona & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Can a Multi-Level Label do Better than a Binary Label for Animal Welfare? A PLS-Analysis of Consumer Satisfaction," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA), vol. 19(3).
    2. Hasselbach, Johanna Lena & Rungie, Cam & Roosen, Jutta, 2015. "The value of ethical concern - Willingness to pay for animal welfare, local origin and organic production," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202729, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. repec:spr:agrhuv:v:34:y:2017:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-017-9777-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Naald, Brian Vander & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2011. "Willingness to pay for other species' well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1325-1335, May.
    5. Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Ortega, David L., 2014. "Comparing Consumer Preferences for Livestock Production Process Attributes Across Products, Species, and Modeling Methods," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(03), August.
    6. Menegaki, Angeliki, N. & Olsen, Søren Bøye & Tsagarakis, Konstantinos P., 2016. "Towards a common standard – A reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, pages 18-50.
    7. Grebitus, Carola & Steiner, Bodo & Veeman, Michele M., 2016. "Paying for sustainability: A cross-cultural analysis of consumers’ valuations of food and non-food products labeled for carbon and water footprints," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 50-58.
    8. Uehleke, Reinhard & Hüttel, Silke, 2016. "The Hypothetical Free-Rider Deficit In The Demand For Farm Animal Welfare Labeled Meat," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244866, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    9. Boronyak-Vasco, Louise & Perry, Neil, 2015. "Using tradeable permits to improve efficiency, equity and animal protection in the commercial kangaroo harvest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 159-167.
    10. Rae, Allan N., 2010. "A Rising Tide of Anti-Animal Consumerism? Issues and Opportunities," 2010 Conference, August 26-27, 2010, Nelson, New Zealand 96940, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Loureiro, Maria L. & Gracia, Azucena & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Do experimental auction estimates pass the scope test?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, pages 7-17.
    12. Saunders, Caroline & Tait, Peter & Guenther, Meike & Dalziel, P.C., 2015. "Consumer preferences in developing and developed country markets of relevance to New Zealand exporters," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202722, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Roosen, J. & Bieberstein, A. & Blanchemanche, S. & Goddard, E. & Marette, S. & Vandermoere, F., 2015. "Trust and willingness to pay for nanotechnology food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 75-83.
    14. Saunders, C.M. & Guenther, M. & Tait, P.R. & Dalziel, P.C., 2015. "Consumer attitudes towards attributes of food and the use of digital media and smart technologies to inform and purchase food," 89th Annual Conference, April 13-15, 2015, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 204206, Agricultural Economics Society.
    15. 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.
    16. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy

    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:oup:apecpp:v:32:y:2010:i:2:p:275-297. 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: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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 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.