IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/srlewp/45990.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Preferences for Broiler Chicken Welfare: Evidence from Stated Preference Studies

Author

Listed:
  • McVittie, Alistair
  • Moran, Dominic
  • Nevison, Ian

Abstract

Animal welfare presents particular policy challenges. Good welfare provides private productivity benefits to producers and some level of positive external benefits to people who care about animal welfare status. In enacting welfare legislation and setting regulatory standards, government needs to measure costs and benefits of welfare changes. While costs are generally observable, the nature of market failure means that welfare benefits are not truly observed in welfare related transactions. Accordingly non-market benefits assessment methods are required to measure the total economic value of welfare improvement. This paper compares the results of two stated preference methods to measure the policy benefits of the proposed EU broiler Welfare Directive. Contingent valuation presents the welfare improvement as a policy bundle and elicits willingness to pay in a referendum or one-off purchase decision. Choice experiments break down the welfare good into its constituent attributes, which may be of interest in designing policy. The methods provide divergence aggregate benefit estimates, which are an artefact of the methodology and the payment methods.

Suggested Citation

  • McVittie, Alistair & Moran, Dominic & Nevison, Ian, 2006. "Public Preferences for Broiler Chicken Welfare: Evidence from Stated Preference Studies," Working Papers 45990, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:srlewp:45990
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.45990
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/45990/files/Work3McVittie.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.45990?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. Sheppard, Andrew & Edge, Stephen, 2005. "Economic and Operational Impacts of the Proposed EU Directive laying down Minimum Standards for the Production of Chickens kept for Meat Production," Research Reports 31749, University of Exeter, Centre for Rural Policy Research.
    2. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, October.
    3. M. Tolga Akçura & Füsun F. Gönül & Elina Petrova, 2004. "Consumer Learning and Brand Valuation: An Application on Over-the-Counter Drugs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 156-169, April.
    4. Marian Stamp Dawkins & Christl A. Donnelly & Tracey A. Jones, 2004. "Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6972), pages 342-344, January.
    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. Jarkko Niemi & Richard Bennett & Beth Clark & Lynn Frewer & Philip Jones & Thomas Rimmler & Richard Tranter, 2020. "A value chain analysis of interventions to control production diseases in the intensive pig production sector," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-25, April.
    2. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    3. 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.

    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. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    2. Tin Cheuk Leung, 2013. "What Is the True Loss Due to Piracy? Evidence from Microsoft Office in Hong Kong," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(3), pages 1018-1029, July.
    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. Bodo Herzog, 2018. "Valuation of Digital Platforms: Experimental Evidence for Google and Facebook," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    6. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    7. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Joanna Coast & Hareth Al‐Janabi & Eileen J. Sutton & Susan A. Horrocks & A. Jane Vosper & Dawn R. Swancutt & Terry N. Flynn, 2012. "Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(6), pages 730-741, June.
    9. Bond, Craig A. & Thilmany, Dawn D. & Bond, Jennifer Keeling, 2008. "What to Choose? The Value of Label Claims to Fresh Produce Consumers," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-26.
    10. Kontoleon Andreas & Yabe Mitsuyasu, 2006. "Market Segmentation Analysis of Preferences for GM Derived Animal Foods in the UK," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-38, December.
    11. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    12. 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.
    13. Koo, Tay T.R. & Wu, Cheng-Lung (Richard) & Dwyer, Larry, 2010. "Ground travel mode choices of air arrivals at regional destinations: The significance of tourism attributes and destination contexts," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 44-53.
    14. Melanie Lefevre, 2011. "Willingness-to-pay for Local Milk-based Dairy Product in Senegal," CREPP Working Papers 1108, Centre de Recherche en Economie Publique et de la Population (CREPP) (Research Center on Public and Population Economics) HEC-Management School, University of Liège.
    15. Xenarios, Stefanos & Amarasinghe, Upali A. & Sharma, Bharat R., 2011. "Valuating agricultural water use and ecological services in agrarian economies: evidences from eastern India," IWMI Reports 158839, International Water Management Institute.
    16. Shu Lin & Haichun Ye, 2013. "Does Inflation Targeting Help Reduce Financial Dollarization?," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(7), pages 1253-1274, October.
    17. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    18. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    19. Toshiaki Sasao, 2004. "Analysis of the socioeconomic impact of landfill siting considering regional factors," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 6(2), pages 147-175, June.
    20. M. Martin Boyer & Philippe De Donder & Claude Denys Fluet & Marie-Louise Leroux & Pierre-Carl Michaud, 2018. "A Canadian Parlor Room-Type Approach to the Long-Term Care Insurance Puzzle," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-13, CIRANO.

    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:srlewp:45990. 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/lesacuk.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.