IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/150276.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Preference for Eggs from Enhanced Animal Welfare Production System: A Stated Choice Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Lu, Yiqing
  • Cranfield, John
  • Widowski, Tina

Abstract

The first choice experiment investigated consumer preferences for different housing systems, while the second investigated consumer preferences for attributes of a housing system. Each choice experiment had two information treatments. In both treatments, a description of each housing system was provided, while in the second treatment, there was additional information regarding the consequences (in terms of effect on birds) of each housing systems based on scientific research. The results indicate that Canadian consumers are willing to pay a premium for eggs from free run and free range systems, but not for eggs from enriched cage systems. There are also positive marginal WTPs for cage-free, outdoor access, access to nests box, perches, scratching pads and more space. In both choice experiment, the WTP for enhanced animal welfare attributes are lower in treatment 2 (with additional information) than treatment 1. Consumer preference for outdoor access is quite consistent across two choice experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150276
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.150276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/150276/files/Paper%20for%20AAEA8_2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.150276?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bennett, R. M., 1997. "Farm animal welfare and food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 281-288, August.
    2. Armenak Markosyan & Jill J. McCluskey & Thomas I. Wahl, 2009. "Consumer Response to Information about a Functional Food Product: Apples Enriched with Antioxidants," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 325-341, September.
    3. Bennett, Richard M. & Blaney, Ralph J. P., 2003. "Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 85-98, July.
    4. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Rolfe, John, 1999. "Ethical Rules and the Demand for Free Range Eggs," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 187-206, September.
    7. A. Jolibert & P. Jourdan, 2005. "Marketing Research," Post-Print halshs-00095262, HAL.
    8. Carlsson, Fredrik & Frykblom, Peter & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2007. "Farm Animal Welfare—Testing for Market Failure," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 61-73, April.
    9. Chang, Jae Bong & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2010. "The Price of Happy Hens: A Hedonic Analysis of Retail Egg Prices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 35(3), pages 1-18, December.
    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. Cao, Ying & Chen, Chen & Cranfield, John & Widowski, Tina, 2017. "Market Responses to Information Conveying Mixed Messages – Prediction of Informational Impacts on Consumer Willingness to Pay for Eggs from Welfare Enhanced Cage Systems using Discrete Choice Experime," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258545, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Harriet Whiley & Beverley Clarke & Kirstin Ross, 2017. "Knowledge and Attitudes towards Handling Eggs in the Home: An Unexplored Food Safety Issue?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-8, January.
    3. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Baoubadi Atozou & Lota D. Tamini & Maurice Doyon, 2022. "Bargaining power and risk from substitutability between products attributes the case of specialty eggs in Canada," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(1), pages 155-169, January.
    5. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Copfer, Jackie & Campbell, Nica, 2021. "Preferences for Sustainability and Supply Chain Essential Worker Conditions: Survey Evidence during COVID-19," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0nv2n39w, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.

    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. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    2. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Market and Institutional Limits in Supplying Animal Welfare: some Conceptual Thoughts for Future Agricultural Economic Research," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(02), April.
    3. 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).
    4. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    5. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    6. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    7. Yang, Yu-Chen, 2018. "Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to pay for animal welfare eggs in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    8. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Blemings, Benjamin & Zhang, Peilu & Neill, Clinton L., 2023. "Where is the value? The impacts of sow gestation crate laws on pork supply and consumer value perceptions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    10. 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).
    11. Veneziani, Mario & Sckokai, Paolo & Moro, Daniele, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for a functional food," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124101, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    12. 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.
    13. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Matthias Staudigel & Aleksej Trubnikov, 2022. "High price premiums as barriers to organic meat demand? A hedonic analysis considering species, cut and retail outlet," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(2), pages 309-334, April.
    16. Boyle, Glenn, 2008. "The Dog That Doesn't Bark: Animal Interests in Economics," Working Paper Series 4017, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    17. Empen, Janine, 2011. "Preissetzung Auf Dem Deutschen Joghurtmarkt: Eine Hedonische Analyse," 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 115362, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    18. 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.
    19. McKendree, Melissa G.S. & Olynk Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David L. & Foster, Kenneth A., 2013. "Consumer Preferences for Verified Pork-Rearing Practices in the Production of Ham Products," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(3), pages 1-21.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Livestock Production/Industries; Public Economics;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aaea13:150276. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    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.