Valuing an EU Animal Welfare Label using Experimental Auctions

Agricultural Economics

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 669-677

  Gracia, Azucena ^a   Loureiro, Maria L ^b   Nayga, Rodolfo M ^c  

^a Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón IA2   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Consumer preferences; Endowment approach; Full bidding approach; Willingness to pay

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS; ANIMAL WELFARE; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; ECOLABELING; EUROPEAN UNION; MEAT; STANDARD (REGULATION); VALUATION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

SPAIN;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 81155137699     PISSN: 01695150     EISSN: 15740862     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00543.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Alfnes, F., 2009. Valuing product attributes in Vickrey auctions when market substitutes are available. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 36(2), 133-149.
2. Bennett, R., 1996. Willingness-to-pay measures of public support for farm animal welfare legislation. Vet. Rec. 139, 320-321.
3. Bennett, R., 1997. Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy. 22(4), 281-288.
4. Bennett, R., Blaney, R.J.P., 2003. Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method. Agric. Econ. 29, 85-98.
5. Bennett, R., Larson, D., 1996. Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfares legislation: An exploratory survey. J. Agric. Econ. 47(2), 224-235.
6. Bernard, J.C., Bernard, D.J., 2009. What is it about organic milk? An experimental analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ.. 91(3), 826-836.
7. Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W.G., McCallion, T., Scarpa, R., 2003. Investigating choice rationality in stated preference methods for enhanced farm animal welfare. Working paper, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University of East Anglia, Norwich .
8. Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W.G., McCallion, T., Scarpa, R., 2004. Choice rationality in stated preference methods applied to farm animal welfare improvements. Paper presented at Applied Environmental Economics Conference, 26 March.
9. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., Lagerkvist, C.J., 2005. Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agriculture. Ambio, 4-5, 366-370.
10. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., Lagerkvist, C.J., 2007a. Farm animal welfare-testing for market failure. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 39(1), 61-73.
11. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., Lagerkvist, C.J., 2007b. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 34(3), 321-344.
12. Chilton, S.M., Burgess, D., Hutchinson, W.G., 2006. The relative value of farm animal welfare. Ecol. Econ. 59, 353-363.
13. Corrigan, J.R., Rousu M.C., 2006. The effect of initial endowments in experimental auctions. Am.J. Agric. Econ. 88(2), 448-547.
14. European Commission, 2006. Communication from the commission to the European parliament and the council on a community action plan on the protection and welfare of animals 2006-2010. available at, Accessed October 2009.
15. European Commission, 2007a. Eurobarometer on attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Available at, Accessed October 2009.
16. European Commissions, 2007b. Animal welfare. Health & consumer protection Directorate-General. Available at, accessed October 2009.
17. European Commissions, 2009. Feasibility study on animal welfare labelling and establishing a community reference centre for animal protection and welfare. Part 1: Animal welfare labelling. Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Brussels Available at, accessed January 2010.
18. Fox, J.A., Hayes, D.J., Shogren, J.F., Kliebenstein, J.B., 1996. Experimental methods in consumer preference studies. J. Food Distribution Res. 27(2), 1-7.
19. Hayes, D.J., Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., 2002. Experts and activists: How information affects the demand for food irradiation. Food Policy 27, 185-193.
20. Hoffman, E., Menkhaus, D., Chakravarti, D., Field, R., Whipple, G., 1993. Using laboratory experimental auctions in marketing research: A case study of new packaging for fresh beef. Market. Sci. 12, 318-338.
21. Huffman, W.E., Shogren, J.F., Rousu, M., Tegene, A., 2003. Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food labels in a market with diverse information: Evidence form experimental auctions. J. Agric. Resour Econ. 28(3), 481-502.
22. ® Reports no. 12, Cardiff, 97., accessed January 2011.
23. Lagerkvist, C.J., Carlsoon, F., Viske D., 2006. Swedish consumer Preferences for animal welfare and biotech: A choice experiment. AgBioForum 9(1), 51-58.
24. Liljenstolpe, C., 2008. Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: An application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness 24(1), 67-84.
25. Little, J., Berrens, R., 2004. Explaining disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values: Further investigation using meta-analysis. Econ. Bull. 3, 1-13.
26. Lusk, J.L., Daniel, M.S., Mark, D.R., Lusk, Ch.L., 2001. Alternative calibration and auction institutions for predicting consumer willingness to pay for nongenetically modified corn chips. J. Agric. Resour. Econ.. 26(1), 40-57.
27. Lusk, J.L., Feldkamp, T., Schoeder, T.C., 2004. Experimental auctions procedure: Impact on valuation of quality differentiated goods. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 86(2), 389-405.
28. Lusk, J.L., Shrogren, J.F., 2007. Experimental Auctions: Methods and Applications in Economic and Marketing Research, Cambridge University Press, U.K.
29. McInerney, J.P., 1991. Economic aspects of the animal welfare issue. In: Thrusfield, M.V. (Ed), Proceedings of a Meeting of the Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine 83-91. SVEPM, Edinburgh .
30. McInerney, J.P., 2004. Animal welfare, economics and policy. Report on a Study Undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics division of Defra. Available at, accessed January 2010.
31. Murphy, J.J., Allen, P.G., Stevens, T.H., Weatherhead, D., 2005. A meta-analysis of hypothetical bias in stated preference valuation. Environ. Resour. Econ. 3, 313-325.
32. Nalley, L.L., Hudson, D., Parkhurst, G., 2006. Consistency of consumer valuation under different information set: An experimental auction with sweet potatoes. J. Food Distribution Res. 37(3), 56-67.
33. Napolitano F., Girolami A., Braghieri, A., 2010. Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 21(11), 537-543.
34. Napolitano F., Pacelli C., Girolami A., Braghieri, A., 2008. Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 910-917.
35. Nocella, G., Hubbard, L., Scarpa, R., 2010. Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: Results of a cross-national survey. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 32(2), 275-297.
36. Olesen I., Alfnes F., Bensze M., Kolstad, K., 2010. Eliciting consumers' willingness to pay for organic and welfare-labelled Salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment. Livest. Sci. 127, 218-226.
37. Rolfe, J., 1999. Ethical rules and the demand for free range eggs. Econ. Anal. Policy. 29(2), 187-206.
38. Roosen, J., Fox, J.A., Hennessy, D.A., Schreiber, A., 1998. Consumers' valuation of insecticide use restrictions: An application to apples. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 23(2), 367-384.
39. Shogren, J.F., Shin, S.Y., Hayes, D.J., Kliebenstein, J.B., 1994. Resolving differences in willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Am. Econ. Rev. 84(1), 255-270.
40. Shogren, J.F., Margolis, M., Koo, C., List, A., 2001. A random Nth-price auction. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 46, 409-421.
41. Tonsor, G.T., Olynk, N., Wolf, Ch., 2009. Consumer preferences for animal welfare attributes: The case of gestation crates. J. Agric. Appl. Econ.. 41(3), 713-730.