Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling

Food Policy

Volumn 37, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 627-633

  Kehlbacher, A ^a   Bennett, R ^a   Balcombe, K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF READING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Contingent valuation; Farm animal welfare; Labelling; Meat; Welfare score

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL WELFARE; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; CONTINGENT VALUATION; EUROPEAN UNION; LIVESTOCK FARMING; MEAT; POLICY MAKING; WELFARE PROVISION; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

UNITED KINGDOM;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84865347743     PISSN: 03069192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Akerlof G.A. The market for 'lemons': quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1970, 84:488-500.
2. Alberini A., Boyle K., Welsh M.P. Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2003, 45:40-62.
3. Albert J.H., Chib S. Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1993, 88:669-679.
4. Balcombe K.G., Chalak A., Fraser I. Model selection for the Bayesian mixed logit. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 57:226-237.
5. Balcombe, K.G., Fraser, I., Samuel, A., 2009b. Estimating WTP with uncertainty choice contingent valuation. Paper provided by Department of Economics, University of Kent - KDPE 09/21.
6. Bennett R.M. The value of farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural Economics 1995, 46:46-60.
7. Bennett R.M. Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 1997, 22:281-288.
8. Botreau R., Bonde M., Butterworth A., Perny P., Bracke M.B.M., Capdeville J., Veissier I. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: A review of existing methods. Animal 2007, 1(8):1179-1187.
9. Botreau R., Bracke M.B.M., Perny P., Butterworth A., Capdeville J., van Reenen C.G., Veissier I. Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 2: Analysis of constraints. Animal 2007, 1(8):1188-1197.
10. Cameron T.A., James M.D. Estimating willingess to pay from survey data: an alternative pre-test-market evaluation procedure. Journal of Marketing Research 1987, 24:389-395.
11. Carlsson F., Frykblom P., Lagerkvist C.J. Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agriculture. Ambio 2005, 34:366-370.
12. Caswell J.A. How labeling of safety and process attributes affects markets for food. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 1998, 27:151-158.
13. Darby M.R., Karni E. Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics 1973, 16:67-88.
14. Deimel, I., Franz, A., Frentrup, M., von Meyer, M., Spiller, A., Theuvsen, L., 2010. Perspektiven für ein Europäisches Tierschutzlabel. BLE Projektkennzifer 08HS010.
15. DeShazo J.R., Fermo G. Designing choice sets for stated preference methods: the effects of complexity on choice consistency. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2002, 44:123-143.
16. European Commission, 2007. Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special EUROBAROMETER 270.
17. Evans M.F., Flores N.E., Boyle K.J. Multiple-bounded uncertainty choice data as probabilistic intentions. Land Economics 2003, 79:549-560.
18. FAWC, 2006. Report on Welfare Labelling. Farm Animal Welfare Council.
19. INRA, 2011. Calculation of scores. http://www1.clermont.inra.fr/wq/protocol_calculation_scores.php.
20. Kahneman D., Sugden R. Experienced utility as a standard of policy evaluation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2005, 32:161-181.
21. Lagerkvist C.J., Carlsson F., Viske D. Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. AgBio Forum 2006, 9:51-58.
22. Li C.Z., Mattsson L. Discrete choice under preference uncertainty: an improved structural model for contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1995, 28:256-269.
23. Liljenstolpe C. Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness 2008, 24:67-84.
24. Lusk J.L., Nilsson T., Foster K. Public preferences and private choices: effect of altruism and free riding on demand for environmentally certified pork. Environmental and Resource Economics 2007, 36:499-521.
25. Mayfield L.E., Bennett R.M., Tranter R.B., Wooldridge M.J. Consumption of welfare-friendly food products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it may be influenced by consumer attitudes to, and behaviour towards, animal welfare attributes. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 2007, 15:59-73.
26. McInerney, J., 1994. Animal welfare: an economic perspective. In: Bennett, R.M. (Ed.), Valuing Farm Animal Welfare, University of Reading, Workshop held at the University of Reading, 30 September, 1993. pp. 9-25.
27. McVittie, A., Moran, D., Sanilands, V., Sparks, N., 2005. Estimating non-market benefits of reduced stocking density and other welfare increasing measures for meat chickens in England. Final report SAC Commercial Ltd. Project No. AW0236.
28. Miele, M., 2010. Report Concerning Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare. Uppsala University, Official deliverable of the EU VII Framework project European Animal Welfare Platform.
29. Nocella G., Hubbard L., Scarpa R. Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 2010, 32:275-297.
30. O'Connor R.E., Bord R.J., Fisher A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Analysis 1999, 19:461-471.
31. Ready R.C., Hu D. Statistical approaches to the fat tail problem for dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics 1995, 71:491-499.
32. RSPCA, 2010. Record-breaking demand for freedom food. (visited 15.01.11). http://www.rspca.org.uk/media/news.
33. Scarpa R., Thiene M., Train K. Utility in willingness to pay space: a tool to address confounding random scale effect in destination choice to the alps. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 2008, 90:994-1010.
34. Train, K., Weeks, M., 2005. Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness-to-pay space. In: Scarpa, R., Alberini, A. (Eds.), Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 1-16 (volume 6 of the economics of non-market goods and resources).
35. Veissier, I., Evans, A., 2007. Rationale behind the welfare quality® assessment of animal welfare. In: Veissier, I., Forkman, B., Jones, B. (Eds.), Second Welfare Quality® Stakeholder Conference " Assuring Animal Welfare: From Societal Concerns to Implementation, 3-4 May, 2007, Berlin, Germany.
36. Veissier, I., Forkman, B., Jones, B. (Eds.), 2007. Assuring Animal Welfare: From Societal Concerns to Implementation - Second Welfare Quality® Stakeholder Conference, Berlin.
37. Wang H. Treatment of " don't-know" responses in contingent valuation surveys: a random valuation model. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997, 32:219-232.
38. Welfare Quality, R., 2009. http://www.welfarequality.net/everyone.
39. Welsh M.P., Poe G. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1998, 36:170-185.