IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277467.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing consumer and producer preferences for animal welfare using a common elicitation format

Author

Listed:
  • Schreiner, J.A.

Abstract

This study assesses pig farmers willingness-to-accept (WTA) higher farm animal welfare (FAW) standards and consumers willingness-to-pay (WTP) for thus enhanced standards. The analysis is based on Discrete Choice Experiments with nearly identical choice sets for both farmers (N=140) and consumers (N=775). Based on preference estimates from a random parameter logit (RPL) model, supply and demand curves for high-welfare pork in Germany are estimated and market equilibria are derived for alternative levels of FAW. We find that estimates of WTP are significantly positive for all FAW attributes. By contrast, our model revealed significant WTA estimates only for surface area per pig and the amount of bedding material on offer, but not for the other FAW attributes. Market simulations for high-welfare pork indicate increasing divergence between demand and supply with rising FAW standards. We estimate a market share of 49% for pork produced in compliance with an entry-level FAW programme with standards only slightly above the legal minimum. Programmes with more demanding standards are estimated to gain much smaller market shares. Keywords Farm animal welfare, Discrete Choice Experiment, Random Parameter Logit, market simulation, common elicitation format. Acknowledgement :

Suggested Citation

  • Schreiner, J.A., 2018. "Assessing consumer and producer preferences for animal welfare using a common elicitation format," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277467, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277467
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277467/files/793.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277467?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. Harvey, David & Hubbard, Carmen, 2013. "Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: An anatomy of market failure," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 105-114.
    2. Weinrich, Ramona & Kühl, Sarah & Franz, Anabell & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for High Welfare Meat in Germany: Self-service Counter or Service Counter?," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 6(01), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Lee L. Schulz & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2010. "Cow‐Calf Producer Preferences for Voluntary Traceability Systems," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 138-162, February.
    4. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, November.
    5. Brian Roe & Thomas L. Sporleder & Betsy Belleville, 2004. "Hog Producer Preferences for Marketing Contract Attributes," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(1), pages 115-123.
    6. 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.
    7. repec:bla:jecsur:v:15:y:2001:i:3:p:435-62 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    9. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Kalibrierung von Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen mittels eines zweistufigen Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(04), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Kalibrierung von Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen mittels eines zweistufigen Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 62(4).
    11. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    12. Weinrich, Ramona & Kühl, Sarah & Franz, Anabell & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Consumer preferences for meat: self-service counter or service counter?," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206232, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    13. Ulrich Enneking, 2004. "Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 205-223, June.
    14. Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & van der Lans, Ivo A.C.M., 2004. "Trade-offs Between Consumer Concerns: An Application for Pork Production," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24996, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    16. Carolina Liljenstolpe, 2008. "Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 67-84.
    17. Franz, Annabell & von Meyer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2010. "Prospects for a European Animal Welfare Label from the German Perspective: Supply Chain Barriers," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 1(4), pages 1-12, 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. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Gunnar Breustedt, 2019. "Using choice experiments to improve the design of agri-environmental schemes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 495-528.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Sonntag, Winnie, 2016. "Gibt es eine Zukunft für die moderne konventionelle Tierhaltung in Nordwesteuropa?," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260780, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    5. 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.
    6. Pirsich, Wiebke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2017. "The Pet Food Industry: An Innovative Distribution Channel for Animal Welfare Meat?," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276914, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    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. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    9. Scaccia, Luisa & Marcucci, Edoardo & Gatta, Valerio, 2023. "Prediction and confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 54-78.
    10. Ting Li & Robert J. Kauffman & Eric van Heck & Peter Vervest & Benedict G. C. Dellaert, 2014. "Consumer Informedness and Firm Information Strategy," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 345-363, June.
    11. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    12. Alfnes, Frode & Steine, Gro, 2005. "None-of-These Bias in Stated Choice Experiments," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24761, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. 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.
    14. Agnes Emberger‐Klein & Marina Zapilko & Klaus Menrad, 2016. "Consumers’ Preference Heterogeneity for GM and Organic Food Products in Germany," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 203-221, April.
    15. repec:ehu:biltok:5564 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Mariel, Petr & Ayala, Amaya de & Hoyos, David & Abdullah, Sabah, 2013. "Selecting random parameters in discrete choice experiment for environmental valuation: A simulation experiment," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 44-57.
    17. Hotaling, Chelsea & Bird, Stephen & Heintzelman, Martin D., 2021. "Willingness to pay for microgrids to enhance community resilience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    18. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Wu, Laping, 2014. "Chinese producer behavior: Aquaculture farmers in southern China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 17-24.
    19. Heise, Heinke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "What do consumers think about farm animal welfare in modern agriculture? Attitudes and shopping behaviour," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 20(3), November.
    20. Abdulrahman, Abdulallah S & Johnston, Robert J, 2016. "Systematic Non-Response in Stated Preference Choice Experiments: Implications for the Valuation of Climate Risk Reductions," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235465, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    21. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    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:iaae18:277467. 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/iaaeeea.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.