IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i22p6218-d284253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?

Author

Listed:
  • Djamel Rahmani

    (The Center for Agro-food Economy and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA), 08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona, Spain)

  • Zein Kallas

    (The Center for Agro-food Economy and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA), 08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona, Spain)

  • Maria Pappa

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Agricultural University of Athens, 11855 Athens, Greece)

  • José Maria Gil

    (The Center for Agro-food Economy and Development (CREDA-UPC-IRTA), 08860 Castelldefels, Barcelona, Spain)

Abstract

We conducted a labelled discrete choice experiment (DCE) to assess consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for fresh hens’ eggs produced via different production systems (caged, barn, free range, or organic). We estimated purchase intentions and WTP for different possible reductions (0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and water use in the egg production systems. Data were collected using an online open-ended questionnaire completed by a representative sample of 1045 Spanish egg consumers. The results of a random parameter logit (RPL) model showed heterogeneous preferences for different types of eggs with higher marginal utility and WTP for a production system ensuring higher animal welfare level, such as free-range eggs. However, consumers showed a lower preference for organic eggs at the actual market prices since they were unwilling to pay for this category of eggs. Moreover, there were positive marginal WTPs for reductions in GHG emissions and water use, but only for significant reductions (20% or 30%) with respect to the current situation. Potential buyers for free-range eggs were identified to be persons under 40 years old, persons with a monthly income of more than €1500, and persons who were pro-environment. Our findings provide producers, sellers and policy makers with useful information that may guide them in the development of successful communication and pricing strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6218-:d:284253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6218/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6218/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    2. Miguel Angel Orduño Torres & Zein Kallas & Selene Ivette Ornelas Herrera & Bouali Guesmi, 2019. "Is Technical Efficiency Affected by Farmers’ Preference for Mitigation and Adaptation Actions against Climate Change? A Case Study in Northwest Mexico," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-15, June.
    3. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    4. Owusu-Sekyere, Enoch & Mahlathi, Yondela & Jordaan, Henry, 2019. "Understanding South African consumers’ preferences and market potential for products with low water and carbon footprints," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 58(3), April.
    5. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers' attitudes on carbon footprint labelling: Results of the SUSDIET project," Thünen Working Papers 78, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    6. Heng, Yan & Hanawa Peterson, Hikaru & Li, Xianghong, 2013. "Consumer Attitudes toward Farm-Animal Welfare: The Case of Laying Hens," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-17.
    7. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Johan Lagerkvist, Carl, 2005. "Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 147-152, November.
    9. Rahmani, Djamel & Loureiro, Maria L., 2019. "Assessing drivers’ preferences for hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) in Spain," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 89-97.
    10. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    11. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    12. Martin Achtnicht, 2012. "German car buyers’ willingness to pay to reduce CO 2 emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 679-697, August.
    13. Francesca Gerini & Frode Alfnes & Alexander Schjøll, 2016. "Organic- and Animal Welfare-labelled Eggs: Competing for the Same Consumers?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 471-490, June.
    14. Goddard, Ellen W. & Boxall, Peter C. & Emunu, John Paul & Boyd, Curtis & Asselin, Andre & Neall, Amanda, 2007. "Consumer Attitudes, Willingness to Pay and Revealed Preferences for Different Egg Production Attributes: Analysis of Canadian Egg Consumers," Project Report Series 52087, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    15. Feucht, Yvonne & Zander, Katrin, 2017. "Consumers’ attitudes on carbon footprint labelling. Results of the SUSDIET project," Thünen Working Paper 266396, Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI), Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    16. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    18. Sylwia Żakowska-Biemans & Agnieszka Tekień, 2017. "Free Range, Organic? Polish Consumers Preferences Regarding Information on Farming System and Nutritional Enhancement of Eggs: A Discrete Choice Based Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, November.
    19. Stephan G.H. Meyerding & Anna-Lena Schaffmann & Mira Lehberger, 2019. "Consumer Preferences for Different Designs of Carbon Footprint Labelling on Tomatoes in Germany—Does Design Matter?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-30, March.
    20. Jayson L. Lusk & Jutta Roosen & John A. Fox, 2003. "Demand for Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn: A Comparison of Consumers in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 16-29.
    21. Klaus G. Grunert, 2005. "Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 369-391, September.
    22. Ziegler, Andreas, 2012. "Individual characteristics and stated preferences for alternative energy sources and propulsion technologies in vehicles: A discrete choice analysis for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1372-1385.
    23. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    24. Azucena Gracia & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & Belinda López- Galán, 2014. "Are Local and Organic Claims Complements or Substitutes? A Consumer Preferences Study for Eggs," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 49-67, January.
    25. Enoch Owusu-Sekyere & Yondela Mahlathi & Henry Jordaan, 2019. "Understanding South African consumers’ preferences and market potential for products with low water and carbon footprints," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(3), pages 354-368, July.
    26. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    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. Szilvia Molnár & László Szőllősi, 2020. "Sustainability and Quality Aspects of Different Table Egg Production Systems: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.

    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. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    3. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    4. Apurba Shee & Calum G. Turvey & Ana Marr, 2021. "Heterogeneous Demand and Supply for an Insurance‐linked Credit Product in Kenya: A Stated Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 244-267, February.
    5. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    6. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).
    7. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Darren Hudson & Karina Gallardo & Terry Hanson, 2005. "Hypothetical (Non)Bias In Choice Experiments: Evidence From Freshwater Prawns," Experimental 0503003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    10. Siikamaki, Juha & Layton, David F., 2007. "Discrete choice survey experiments: A comparison using flexible methods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 122-139, January.
    11. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    12. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    13. Lin, Wen & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2022. "Green identity labeling, environmental information, and pro-environmental food choices," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    14. Rajo, Lindelly A. & Michelle S, Segovia & Arias, Fredi & Marco A., Palma, 2016. "Willingness-to-Pay for an Educational Label: The Zamorano University Brand," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    16. Banerjee, Swagata (Ban) & Martin, Steven W. & Hudson, Darren, 2006. "A Choice-Based Conjoint Experiment with Genetically Engineered Cotton in the Mississippi Delta," 2006 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2006, Orlando, Florida 35389, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    18. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    19. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6218-:d:284253. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.