IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v38y2021i4d10.1007_s10460-021-10206-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental values and Americans’ beliefs about farm animal well-being

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Suchyta

    (Michigan State University)

Abstract

Social scientists are increasingly interested in beliefs about farm animal well-being and the factors that predict these beliefs. Yet little attention has been given to the role of values, which social psychologists consider to be the building blocks of human cognition. This study draws from research on values in the environmental social sciences to examine the relationship between environmental values and Americans’ beliefs about farm animal well-being. It also makes a methodological contribution by demonstrating the importance of measuring beliefs about farm animal well-being on large industrial and small family farms separately. A series of paired sample t-tests finds Americans believe the well-being of farm animals on large industrial farms is significantly worse than on small family farms. Multiple regression results reveal the importance of environmental values, as well as various demographic factors, in understanding beliefs about farm animal well-being. They also suggest the presence of direct and indirect effects of values on beliefs. Implications and avenues for further research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Suchyta, 2021. "Environmental values and Americans’ beliefs about farm animal well-being," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 987-1001, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:38:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10206-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-021-10206-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-021-10206-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-021-10206-0?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. Jesse A Robbins & Caitlin Roberts & Daniel M Weary & Becca Franks & Marina A G von Keyserlingk, 2019. "Factors influencing public support for dairy tie stall housing in the U.S," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Oddveig Storstad & Hilde Bjørkhaug, 2003. "Foundations of production and consumption of organic food in Norway: Common attitudes among farmers and consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 20(2), pages 151-163, June.
    4. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2011. "On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 430-437, June.
    5. Warner, Mellie L. & Harris, Harold M., Jr. & Vander Mey, Brenda J. & Allen, J.S. & Sieverdes, C.M. & Mobley, C. & Skewes, P., 1998. "Animal Agriculture in South Carolina: A Fact Book," Extension Economic Reports 112913, Clemson University, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2015. "What Happens When Food Marketers Require Restrictive Farming Practices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1021-1043.
    2. Gramig, Benjamin M. & Widmar, Nicole J.O., 2015. "Estimating Farmers' Willingness to Change Tillage Practices to Supply Carbon Emissions Offsets," 89th Annual Conference, April 13-15, 2015, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 204203, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    4. Jayson Lusk, 2011. "The market for animal welfare," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 561-575, December.
    5. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212609, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Sonntag, Winnie & Spiller, Achim, 2016. "Prozessqualitäten in der WTO: Ein Vorschlag für die reliable Messung von moralischen Bedenken," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260775, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    7. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Helena Hansson & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2014. "Decision Making for Animal Health and Welfare: Integrating Risk‐Benefit Analysis with Prospect Theory," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 1149-1159, June.
    9. Ramona Weinrich & Annabell Franz & Achim Spiller, 2016. "Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 18(2), pages 155-172.
    10. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika, 2013. "Farmer preferences for drought tolerance in hybrid versus inbred rice: Evidence from Bihar, India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1307, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    11. Sirieix, Lucie & Schaer, Burkhard, 2005. "Buying Organic Food in France: Shopping Habits and Trust," 15th Congress, Campinas SP, Brazil, August 14-19, 2005 24265, International Farm Management Association.
    12. Yan, Zhen & Zhou, Jie-hong, 2015. "Measuring consumer heterogeneous preferences for pork traits under media reports: choice experiment in sixteen traceability pilot cities, China," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211884, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Milford, Anna & Lien, Gudbrand & Reed, Matthew, 2021. "Different Sales Channels for Different Farmers: Local and Mainstream Marketing of Organic Fruits and Vegetables in Norway," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315058, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Heinrichs, J. & Kuhn, T. & Pahmeyer, C. & Britz, W., 2021. "Economic effects of plot sizes and farm-plot distances in organic and conventional farming systems: A farm-level analysis for Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    15. Lu, Yiqing & Cranfield, John & Widowski, Tina, 2013. "Consumer Preference for Eggs from Enhanced Animal Welfare Production System: A Stated Choice Analysis," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150276, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Feyaerts, Hendrik & Maertens, Miet, 2021. "The Market for Onions or Lemons? Import Substitution and Consumer Preferences in Senegal," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315170, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    18. Hyytia, Nina & Kola, Jukka, 2005. "Citizens' Attitudes Towards Multifunctional Agriculture," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24736, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Wier, Mette & O'Doherty Jensen, Katherine & Andersen, Laura Mørch & Millock, Katrin, 2008. "The character of demand in mature organic food markets: Great Britain and Denmark compared," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 406-421, October.
    20. Ufer, Danielle, 2022. "State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries: An Overview," USDA Miscellaneous 333544, United States Department of Agriculture.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:38:y:2021:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10206-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.