Measuring the value to the public of pig welfare improvements: A contingent valuation approach

Animal Welfare

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 61-69

  Glass, C A ^a   Hutchinson, W G ^a   Beattie, V E ^b  

^a QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY BELFAST   (United Kingdom)

^b DEVENISH NUTRITION LTD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Contingent valuation; Pigs; Spike models; Substitution effects; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL HOUSING; ANIMAL WELFARE; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; CONTINGENT VALUATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL ENRICHMENT; GROWTH; LIVESTOCK; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NONHUMAN; POLICY; PUBLIC OPINION; SWINE;

ANIMALIA; SUS SCROFA;

EID: 13644256389     PISSN: 09627286     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. An Y and Ayala A 1996 A Mixture Model of Willingness to Pay Distributions. Working Paper. Duke University and Central Bank: Equador
2. Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R and Schuman H 1993 Contingent valuation methodology report, report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Resister 58(10): 4602-4614
3. Beattie VE, Walker N and Sneddon IA 1995 Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207-220
4. Beattie VE, Walker N and Sneddon IA 1996 An investigation of the effect of environmental enrichment and space allowance on the behaviour and production of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 151-158
5. Bennett RM (ed) 1994 Valuing Farm Animal Welfare - Proceedings of a Workshop held at the University of Reading, 30 September 1993, Occasional paper no. 3. University of Reading: Reading, UK
6. Bennett RM 1996 People's willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 5: 3-11
7. Bennett RM 1998 Measuring public support for animal welfare: a case study of cage egg production. Animal Welfare 7: 1-10
8. Bennett RM and Larson D 1996 Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: an exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 47: 224-235
9. Dillman DA 1978 Mail and Telephone Surveys - The Total Design Method. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK
10. Ewbank R and Bryant MJ 1972 Aggressive behaviour amongst groups of domesticated pigs kept at various stocking rates. Animal Behaviour 20: 21-28
11. Fredman P 1994 A Test of Non-Response in a Mail Contingent Valuation Survey, Working Paper. Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Umeå, Sweden
12. Hanemann WM, Loomis JB and Kanninen BJ 1991 Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 255-263
13. Hills G 2001 LAWS Guide to Lobbying. Labour Animal Welfare Society: Walsall, UK
14. Hoehn JP and Loomis JB 1993 Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25: 56-75
15. Hoehn JP and Randall A 1987 A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14: 226-247
16. Hoehn JP and Randall A 1989 Too many proposals pass the benefit-cost test. American Economic Review 79: 544-551
17. Hurnik JF and Lewis NJ 1991 Use of body surface area to set minimum space allowance for confined pigs and cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 577-580
18. Jensen AH 1971 Biological implications of intensive swine rearing systems. Journal of Animal Science 31: 560-565
19. Kahneman D and Knetsch J 1992a Valuing public goods: "the purchase of moral satisfaction". Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 57-70
20. Kriström B 1997 Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 135-139
21. Mattsson L and Li C 1994 Variations Between Response and Non-response Categories in a Mail Contingent Valuation Survey, Working Paper 149. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Economics: Umeå, Sweden
22. Meunier-Salaun MC, Vantrimponte MN, Raab A and Dantzer R 1987 Effect of floor area restriction upon performance, behaviour and physiology of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1371-1377
23. Mitchell R C and Carson RT 1989 Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future: Washington DC, USA
24. ONS (Office for National Statistics) 2004 The Expenditure and Food Survey. Office for National Statistics: London, UK
25. Randolph JH, Cromwell GL, Stakly TS and Kratzer DD 1981 Effects of group size and space allowance on performance and behaviour of swine. Journal of Animal Science 53: 922-927
26. Ruiterkamp WA 1987 The behaviour of grower pigs in relation to housing systems. Netherland Journal of Agricultural Science 35: 67-70
27. Smith TW 1983 The hidden 25 percent: an analysis of non-response on the general social survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 47(3): 386-404
28. Sneddon IA and Beattie VE 1995 Improving the welfare of pigs. Irish Journal of Psychology 16: 418-425
29. Stinchcombe A, Jones C and Sheatsley PB 1981 Non-response bias for attitude questions. Public Opinion Quarterly 45 359-375