IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iefi16/244482.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Acceptance of Animal Husbandry Practices: The Consumer Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Roosen, Jutta
  • Dahlhausen, Johanna Lena
  • Petershammer, Silke

Abstract

Everything consumers do involves making a choice. Looking at these choices, an increasing consumer interest in food products bearing labels identifying non-tangible attributes has been observed over the last years. Consumer concern relates not only to the issue as to what is produced and which product attributes are present in final products, but the growing sentiment relates also to the question of how food is produced in general. Consumers question fairness and justness of production processes with regard to producers (e.g., fair trade labelling) or animals (e.g., animal welfare labelling) and demand support for local supply chains. As a result, certain food production technologies are stigmatized in certain parts of the society. Thereby stigma is defined as “[…] a mark placed on a person, place, technology, or product, associated with a particular attribute that identifies it as different and deviant, flawed, or undesirable.” (Kasperson, Jhaveri & Kasperson, 2001:19). Human values are thought to be at the root of the stigmatization of certain food production technologies. A systematic analysis of human values was introduced in the seminal book by Milton Rokeach in 1973. He defines values “an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative modes of conduct or end-states of existence.” Values hence transgress situations and time. Later work by Schwartz (1994) has refined the definition of values and developed a value survey instrument that links values to ten different value domains. He arranges these along a two-folded dichotomy of self-enhancement versus self-transgression and openness to change versus conservation. In consequence, some of these values relate to egoistic versus altruistic versus biospheric values. Thereby egoistic values refer to an egocentric orientation, altruistic values refer to a homocentric orientation and biospheric values refer to an ecocentric orientation (De Groot & Steg, 2008).

Suggested Citation

  • Roosen, Jutta & Dahlhausen, Johanna Lena & Petershammer, Silke, 2016. "Acceptance of Animal Husbandry Practices: The Consumer Perspective," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244482, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:iefi16:244482
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.244482
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/244482/files/30-B6_Dahlhausen_paperEAAE.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.244482?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. Jayson Lusk & Tomas Nilsson & Ken Foster, 2007. "Public Preferences and Private Choices: Effect of Altruism and Free Riding on Demand for Environmentally Certified Pork," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(4), pages 499-521, April.
    2. Jayson L. Lusk & Brian C. Briggeman, 2009. "Food Values," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 184-196.
    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. Gauly, Sarah & Busch, Gesa & Spiller, Achim & Enneking, Ulrich & Kunde, Susanne & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie, 2020. "How do People look at Pictures of Pigs? Analyzing Fixation Duration Depending on Pig Expression and Barn Type using Eye-Tracking," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 69(4), December.
    2. 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.
    3. Simons, J. & Hartmann, M. & Klink-Lehmann, J. & Vierboom, C. & Harlen, I., 2018. "Acceptance of animal husbandry in Germany: Drivers and different ways to cope with problems," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277367, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Konduru, Srinivasa & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Magnier, Alexandre, 2009. "GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Palma, Marco A. & Ness, Meghan L. & Anderson, David P., 2015. "Buying More than Taste? A Latent Class Analysis of Health and Prestige Determinants of Healthy Food," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202566, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Lai, John & Olynk Widmar, Nicole J. & Gunderson, Michael A. & Widmar, David A. & Ortega, David L., 2018. "Prioritization of farm success factors by commercial farm managers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    5. Giovanna Piracci & Emilia Lamonaca & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo & Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini, 2024. "On the willingness to pay for food sustainability labelling: A meta‐analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 55(2), pages 329-345, March.
    6. Parks, Joanna, 2013. "The Effects of Food Labeling and Dietary Guidance on Nutrition in the United States," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150583, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. 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.
    8. Demartini, Eugenio & Ricci, Elena Claire & Mattavelli, Simone & Stranieri, Stefanella & Gaviglio, Anna & Banterle, Alessandro & Richetin, Juliette & Perugini, Marco, 2018. "Exploring Consumer Biased Evaluations: Halos Effects of Local Food and of Related Attributes," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(4), August.
    9. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    10. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.
    11. Barlagne, Carla & Bazoche, Pascale & Thomas, Alban & Ozier-Lafontaine, Harry & Causeret, François & Blazy, Jean-Marc, 2015. "Promoting local foods in small island states: The role of information policies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 62-72.
    12. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.
    13. Langena, Nina & Klink, Jeanette & Hartmann, Monika, 2013. "Individualized or non-individualized IDM: What elicits consumer preferences best?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150637, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Levan Elbakidze & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. & Hao Li & Chris McIntosh, 2014. "Value elicitation for multiple quantities of a quasi-public good using open ended choice experiments and uniform price auctions," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 253-265, March.
    15. An, Henry & Pouliot, Sebastien & Volpe, Richard J., III, 2012. "Local, Organic, Inexpensive and Safe: Can Large Retailers Do It All?," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124754, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Marietta Kiss & Kontor Eniko & Kun Andras Istvan, 2015. "The Effect Of 'Organic' Labels On Consumer Perception Of Chocolates," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 448-457, July.
    17. Pouliot, Sebastien & Sumner, Daniel A., 2014. "Differential impacts of country of origin labeling: COOL econometric evidence from cattle markets," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 107-116.
    18. Caputo, Vincenzina & Aprile, Maria Carmela & Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr., 2011. "Consumers’ Valuation for European food quality labels: Importance of Label Information Provision," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114324, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Hao, Na & Wang, Hong Holly & Wetzstein, Michael E., 2017. "Will the New Rich Waste More Food? Evidence from China," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258259, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Lusk, Jayson L., 2012. "The political ideology of food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 530-542.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness; Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety; Food Security and Poverty;
    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:iefi16:244482. 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/ilbonde.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.