IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v50y2015icp35-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture

Author

Listed:
  • Hansson, Helena
  • Lagerkvist, Carl Johan

Abstract

In this study, we sought to identify the use and non-use values that underlie farmers’ decision making with respect to animal welfare, based on in-depth interviews with 50 dairy farmers in Sweden. We identified use values related to: being able to continue the business, earning a living from the business, not being tied to the farm (i.e. having time available for other things), product quality, and work environment. We also identified non-use values related to avoidance of suffering, being able to further improve the welfare of dairy cows, the dairy farmer feeling good him/herself, ethical considerations, a feeling of doing the right thing, and animals eating properly (i.e. functioning as dairy cows should). Understanding the values underlying dairy farmers’ decision making with respect to animal welfare is an important step in understanding why these farmers work with animal welfare. The results are useful in improving communications from authorities and farm advisors to farmers, as a strategy to gain better acceptance for improved animal welfare standards; in designing product certification schemes in the food industry; and in communicating to the public the values influencing production of dairy products.

Suggested Citation

  • Hansson, Helena & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2015. "Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 35-42.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:50:y:2015:i:c:p:35-42
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919214001547
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.10.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayson Lusk & F. Norwood, 2010. "Direct Versus Indirect Questioning: An Application to the Well-Being of Farm Animals," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 551-565, May.
    2. S. Kambua Chema & Leonie A. Marks & Joseph L. Parcell & Maury Bredahl, 2006. "Marketing Biotech Soybeans with Functional Health Attributes," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(4), pages 685-703, December.
    3. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Helena Hansson & Sebastian Hess & Ruben Hoffman, 2011. "Provision of Farm Animal Welfare: Integrating Productivity and Non-Use Values," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 484-509.
    4. Bech-Larsen, Tino & Nielsen, Niels Asger, 1999. "A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation of attributes of low involvement products," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 315-341, June.
    5. Barrena Figueroa, Ramo & Sanchez Garcia, Mercedes, 2007. "Connecting Product Attributes with Emotional Benefits. Analysis of a Mediterranean product across consumer age segments," 103rd Seminar, April 23-25, 2007, Barcelona, Spain 9435, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Bitzios, Michael & Fraser, Iain & Haddock-Fraser, Janet, 2011. "Functional ingredients and food choice: Results from a dual-mode study employing means-end-chain analysis and a choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 714-724, October.
    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. Leduc, Gaëlle & Billaudet, Larissa & Engström, Ebba & Hansson, Helena & Ryan, Mary, 2023. "Farmers' perceived values in conventional and organic farming: A comparison between French, Irish and Swedish farmers using the Means-end chain approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    2. Purwins, Nina & Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit, 2016. "Determinants of pig farmers’ participation in an animal welfare program," 26th International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA) World Forum, 2016, Aarhus, Denmark 274784, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association (IFAMA).
    3. Birhanu Addisu Adamie & Helena Hansson, 2022. "Rationalising inefficiency in dairy production: evidence from an over-time approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(2), pages 433-471.
    4. Jinming Wang & Jialu Dai & Bart Julien Dewancker & Weijun Gao & Zaiqiang Liu & Yue Zhou, 2022. "Impact of Situational Environmental Education on Tourist Behavior—A Case Study of Water Culture Ecological Park in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-23, September.
    5. Alpmann, Jan & Bitsch, Vera, 2017. "Dynamics of asymmetric conflict: The case of the German Milk Conflict," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 62-72.
    6. Purwins, Nina & Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit, 2018. "Improving market success of animal welfare programs through key stakeholder involvement: heading towards responsible innovation?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(4).
    7. Okello, Julius J. & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan & Muoki-Kingori, Penina & Heck, Simon & Prain, Gordon, 2016. "Combining sensory evaluation and mental models in the assessment of consumer preferences for and choice of healthy products: Experience from a field experiment in Kenya," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236244, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2019. "Distinguishing protest responses in contingent valuation: A conceptualization of motivations and attitudes behind them," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-20, January.
    9. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    10. Schulte, Hinrich D. & Armbrecht, Linda & Bürger, Rasmus & Gauly, Matthias & Musshoff, Oliver & Hüttel, Silke, 2018. "Let the cows graze: An empirical investigation on the trade-off between efficiency and farm animal welfare in milk production," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 375-385.
    11. Rami Al Sidawi & Teo Urushadze & Angelika Ploeger, 2021. "Factors and Components Affecting Dairy Smallholder Farmers and the Local Value Chain— Kvemo Kartli as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-26, May.
    12. Julia A. Schreiner & Sebastian Hess, 2017. "The Role of Non-Use Values in Dairy Farmers’ Willingness to Accept a Farm Animal Welfare Programme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 553-578, June.
    13. Ufer, Danielle J. & Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A. & McKendree, Melissa & Swanson, Janice, 2022. "Getting past the gatekeeper: Key motivations of dairy farmer intent to adopt animal health and welfare-improving biotechnology," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    14. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    15. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    16. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leduc, Gaëlle & Billaudet, Larissa & Engström, Ebba & Hansson, Helena & Ryan, Mary, 2023. "Farmers' perceived values in conventional and organic farming: A comparison between French, Irish and Swedish farmers using the Means-end chain approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    2. Bechtold, Kai-Brit & Abdulai, Awudu, 2013. "Combining Likert scale attitudinal statements with choice experiments to analyze pref-erence heterogeneity for functional dairy products," 87th Annual Conference, April 8-10, 2013, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 158851, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Kelvin Balcombe & Michail Bitzios & Iain Fraser & Janet Haddock-Fraser, 2014. "Using Attribute Importance Rankings Within Discrete Choice Experiments: An Application to Valuing Bread Attributes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(2), pages 446-462, June.
    4. Raffaelli, R. & Menapace, L., 2018. "Indirect questioning as a debiasing mechanism in preference elicitation for sustainable food? First evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277039, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    6. Hellyer, Nicole Elizabeth & Fraser, Iain & Haddock-Fraser, Janet, 2012. "Food choice, health information and functional ingredients: An experimental auction employing bread," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 232-245.
    7. Ramo Barrena & Mercedes Sánchez, 2010. "The link between household structure and the level of abstraction in the purchase decision process: an analysis using a functional food," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 243-264.
    8. Stéphanie Truchet & Nicolas Mauhe & Marie Herve, 2017. "Veterinarian shortage areas: what determines the location of new graduates?," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(4), pages 255-282, December.
    9. Osman GULSEVEN & Michael WOHLGENANT, 2017. "What are the factors affecting the consumers' milk choices?," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 63(6), pages 271-282.
    10. Breivik, Einar & Supphellen, Magne, 2003. "Elicitation of product attributes in an evaluation context: A comparison of three elicitation techniques," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 77-98, February.
    11. Voss, Roediger & Gruber, Thorsten & Szmigin, Isabelle, 2007. "Service quality in higher education: The role of student expectations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 949-959, September.
    12. Birhanu Addisu Adamie & Helena Hansson, 2022. "Rationalising inefficiency in dairy production: evidence from an over-time approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(2), pages 433-471.
    13. Bechtold, Kai-Brit & Abdulai, Awudu, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Measure Consumers’ Preferences for Functional Dairy Products in Germany: Are Willingness-To-Pay Estimates Affected by Starting Point Bias?," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 135073, Agricultural Economics Society.
    14. Lai, Yufeng & Minegishi, Kota & Boaitey, Albert K., 2020. "Social Desirability Bias in Farm Animal Welfare Preference Research," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304375, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Glenk, Klaus & Hall, Clare & Liebe, Ulf & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2012. "Preferences of Scotch malt whisky consumers for changes in pesticide use and origin of barley," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 719-731.
    16. Hsin-Hui Lin & Joan Chang, 2012. "A construction of consumer cognitive structures and their implications in furniture shopping decisions: a means-end chain approach," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 6(2), pages 197-218, June.
    17. Bechtold, Kai-Brit & Abdulai, Awudu, 2012. "Willingness-To-Pay for Functional Dairy Products and the Influence of Starting Point Bias: Empirical Evidence for Germany," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124776, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Di Vita, Giuseppe & D'amico, Mario & Lombardi, Alessia & Pecorino, Biagio, 2016. "Evaluating trends of low sodium content in food: The willingness to pay for salt-reduced bread, a case study," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(2), June.
    19. Staudigel, Matthias & Anders, Sven, 2016. "Does taste trump health? Effects of nutritional characteristics on brand-level demand for chips in the U.S," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235755, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:50:y:2015:i:c:p:35-42. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.