Heterogeneity in consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems

Food Policy

Volumn 49, Issue P1, 2014, Pages 174-185

  de Jonge, Janneke ^a   van Trijp, Hans ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Animal welfare; Broiler production systems; Conjoint analysis; Consumers; Latent class regression; Market segmentation

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURAL MARKET; ANIMAL WELFARE; CONSUMPTION BEHAVIOR; FOOD POLICY; HETEROGENEITY; LIVESTOCK FARMING; PERCEPTION; FOOD MARKET; MARKET CONDITIONS; MEAT; POULTRY; PRODUCTION SYSTEM; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84907520407     PISSN: 03069192     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.008     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Barnard C.J., Hurst J.L. Welfare by design: the natural selection of welfare criteria. Anim Welf. 1996, 5:405-433.
2. Berndsen M., Van der Pligt J. Ambivalence towards meat. Appetite 2004, 42:71-78.
3. Bessei W. Welfare of broilers: a review. World Poultry Sci. J. 2006, 62:455-466.
4. Chrzan, K., Orme, B., 2000. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. (accessed 15.02.14). http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/desgncbc.pdf.
5. Davis M.H. Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 44:113-126.
6. De Jonge J., van Trijp H.C.M. The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Poult. Sci. 2013, 91(12):3080-3095.
7. De Jonge J., van Trijp H.C.M. Meeting heterogeneity in consumer demand for animal welfare: a reflection on existing knowledge and implications for the meat sector. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. 2013, 26:629-661.
8. Dinev I. Leg weakness pathology in broiler chickens. J. Poult. Sci. 2012, 49:63-67.
9. European Commission, 2007. Attitudes of EU Citizens Towards Animal Welfare. (accessed 20.09.13). http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf.
10. Frewer L.J., Kole A., van de Kroon S.M., de Lauwere C. Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. 2005, 18:345-367.
11. Fulponi L. Private voluntary standards in the food system: the perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Policy 2006, 31:1-13.
12. Graham J., Haidt J., Nosek B.A. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2009, 96:1029-1046.
13. Graham J., Nosek B.A., Haidt J., Iyer R., Koleva S., Ditto P.H. Mapping the moral domain. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 101:366-385.
14. Hair J.F., Anderson R.E., Tatham R.L., Black W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis 1998, Prentice-Hall International, London, [etc.]. fifth ed.
15. Herzog H.A., Betchart N.S., Pittman R. Gender, sex role identity and attitudes. Anthrozoos 1991, 4:184-191.
16. Hoogland C.T., de Boer J., Boersema J.J. Food and sustainability: do consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on production standards?. Appetite 2007, 49:47-57.
17. Huber J., Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J. Mark. Res. 1996, 33:307-317.
18. Ingenbleek P.T.M., Immink V.M. Managing conflicting stakeholder interests: an exploratory case analysis of the formulation of corporate social responsibility standards in the Netherlands. J. Public Policy Mark. 2010, 29:52-65.
19. Kauppinen T., Vainio A., Valros A., Rita H., Vesala K.M. Improving animal welfare: qualitative and quantitative methodology in the study of farmers' attitudes. Anim Welf. 2010, 19:523-536.
20. Krystallis A., de Barcellos M.D., Kuegler J.O., Verbeke W., Grunert K.G. Attitudes of European citizens towards pig production systems. Livest. Sci. 2009, 126:46-56.
21. Lagerkvist C.J., Hess S. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2011, 38:55-78.
22. Mäkiniemi J.P., Pirttilä-Backman A.M., Pieri M. Ethical and unethical food. Social representations among Finnish, Danish and Italian students. Appetite 2011, 56:495-502.
23. Mayer R.E., Anderson R.B. Animations need narrations: an experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. J. Educ. Psychol. 1991, 83:484-490.
24. McEachern M.G., Schröder M.J.A. The role of livestock production ethics in consumer values towards meat. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. 2002, 15:221-237.
25. Meuwissen M.P.M., Van Der Lans I.A., Huirne R.B.M. Consumer preferences for pork supply chain attributes. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 2007, 54:293-312.
26. Needham M.D. Value orientations toward coral reefs in recreation and tourism settings: a conceptual and measurement approach. J. Sustain. Tour. 2010, 18:757-772.
27. Nocella G., Boecker A., Hubbard L., Scarpa R. Eliciting consumer preferences for certified animal-friendly foods: can elements of the theory of planned behavior improve choice experiment analysis?. Psychol. Market. 2012, 29:850-868.
28. Ohl F., Van der Staay F.J. Animal welfare: at the interface between science and society. Vet. J. 2012, 192:13-19.
29. Oosterkamp E.B., Bremmer B., Hoste R., De Greef K.H. Verkenning van Dierlijke Tussensegmenten in Onze Buurlanden 2011, Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague, Netherlands.
30. Pouta E., Heikkila J., Forsman-Hugg S., Isoniemi M., Makela J. Consumer choice of broiler meat: the effects of country of origin and production methods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21:539-546.
31. Robins A., Phillips C.J.C. International approaches to the welfare of meat chickens. World Poultry Sci. J. 2011, 67:351-369.
32. Rozin P., Markwith M., Stoess C. Moralization and becoming a vegetarian: the transformation of preferences into values and the recruitment of disgust. Psychol. Sci. 1997, 8:67-73.
33. Stolz H., Stolze M., Janssen M., Hamm U. Preferences and determinants for organic, conventional and conventional-plus products - the case of occasional organic consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22:772-779.
34. Te Velde H., Aarts N., Van Woerkum C. Dealing with ambivalence: farmers' and consumers' perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. 2002, 15:203-219.
35. Townsend C., Kahn B.E. The "visual preference heuristic": the influence of visual versus verbal depiction on assortment processing, perceived variety, and choice overload. J. Consum. Res. 2014, 40:993-1015.
36. Vanhonacker F., Verbeke W., Van Poucke E., Buijs S., Tuyttens F.A.M. Societal concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livest. Sci. 2009, 123:16-22.
37. Vanhonacker F., Verbeke W., Van Poucke E., Pieniak Z., Nijs G., Tuyttens F. The concept of farm animal welfare: citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. J. Agric. Environ. Ethic. 2012, 25:79-101.
38. Vanhonacker F., Verbeke W., Van Poucke E., Tuyttens F.A.M. Segmentation based on consumers' perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. Int. J. Soc. Food Agr. 2007, 15:84-100.
39. Verbeke W. Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Anim Welf. 2009, 18:325-333.
40. Vermunt J.K., Magidson J. Latent GOLD 4.0 User's Guide 2005, Statistical Innovations Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts.
41. Wedel M., Kamakura W. Market Segmentation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations 2000, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell. 2 ed.
42. Zander K., Hamm U. Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21:495-503.
43. Zegers F.E., Ten Berge J.M.F. A family of association coefficients for metric scales. Psychometrika 1985, 50:17-24.