IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-02285598.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farm animal welfare : French perception through contingent valuation method

Author

Listed:
  • Karine Latouche

    (ESR - Unité de recherche d'Économie et Sociologie Rurales - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique)

Abstract

L'application des directives européennes en matière de bien-être des animaux d'élevage en France pose la délicate question de l'intérêt des consommateurs et de leur consentement à payer (CAP) pour la prise en compte du bien-être de ces animaux (BEA). Pour déterminer ces CAP, la méthode d'évaluation contingente (MEC) a été mise en place malgré les critiques qu'elle suscite. Le CAP des consommateurs pour rémunérer l'amélioration du bien-être des animaux dans différents élevages prend ici la forme d'une augmentation de prix de quatre produits différents : 1kg d'escalope de veau, 1kg de jambon, 1 douzaine d'œufs et 1 kg de steak. L'enquête a été menée auprès de 1 009 personnes, et montre un grand intérêt des français pour le BEA, certains systèmes de production ayant même été qualifié d'inacceptables. Ces résultats devront inévitablement être pris en compte par les producteurs et les décideurs publics. Ils sont un bon indicateur de l'opinion publique française et révèlent les bénéfices perçus de politiques d'amélioration du bien-être des animaux de ferme. Quatre modèles économétriques ont été estimés afin de déterminer les principales variables expliquant la valeur du CAP pour chaque produit considéré.

Suggested Citation

  • Karine Latouche, 1999. "Farm animal welfare : French perception through contingent valuation method," Post-Print hal-02285598, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-02285598
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02285598
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02285598/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey K. Lazo & William D. Schulze & Gary H. McClelland & James K. Doyle, 1992. "Can Contingent Valuation Measure Nonuse Values?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(5), pages 1126-1132.
    2. Olof Johansson-Stenman, 1998. "The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 429-442, April.
    3. John Rolfe & Jeffrey W. Bennett, 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens (Blamey, Common And Quiggin, Ajae 39:3) — A Comment," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 129-133, August.
    4. Winter, M. & Fry, C. & Carruthers, S. P., 1998. "European agricultural policy and farm animal welfare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(3-4), pages 305-323, November.
    5. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1995. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 263-288, December.
    6. Latouche, K. & Rainelli, P. & Vermersch, D., 1998. "Food safety issues and the BSE scare: some lessons from the French case," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 347-356, October.
    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. Tienhaara, Annika & Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija, 2015. "Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-10.
    2. Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2005. "Australasian environmental economics: contributions, conflicts and ‘cop-outs’," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), pages 1-19.
    3. Abbie McCartney & Jonelle Cleland, 2010. "Choice Experiment Framing and Incentive Compatibility: observations from public focus groups," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1076, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    4. Bennett, Jeffrey W. & Morrison, Mark & Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Testing the validity of responses to contingent valuation questioning," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 42(2), pages 1-18.
    5. Schumacher, Ingmar, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 306-318.
    6. Ojea, Elena & Loureiro, Maria L., 2007. "Altruistic, egoistic and biospheric values in willingness to pay (WTP) for wildlife," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 807-814, September.
    7. Curtis, John A. & McConnell, Kenneth E., 1997. "The citizen versus consumer hypothesis: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 46(1), pages 1-15.
    8. Stephen Harrison & Suh, J., 2005. "A Test for the Presence of Genuine or Pure Altruistic Motives in Non-Market Valuation: A Case Study Using Choice Modeling," Discussion Papers Series 338, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    9. van der Pol, Thomas & Weikard, Hans-Peter & van Ierland, Ekko, 2012. "Can altruism stabilise international climate agreements?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 112-120.
    10. R.K. Blamey & Mick S. Common & John C. Quiggin, 1996. "Respondents To Contingent Valuation Surveys: Consumers Or Citizens?— Reply," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(2), pages 135-138, August.
    11. Kijazi, Martin Herbert & Kant, Shashi, 2010. "Forest stakeholders' value preferences in Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 357-369, June.
    12. van Calker, K.J. & Berentsen, P.B.M. & de Boer, I.J.M. & Giesen, G.W.J. & Huirne, R.B.M., 2007. "Modelling worker physical health and societal sustainability at farm level: An application to conventional and organic dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 205-219, May.
    13. Rondeau, Daniel & Rollins, Kimberly S. & Martin, Patrick, 1993. "Costly Information and Estimating Existence Values," Department of Agricultural Economics and Business 258751, University of Guelph.
    14. Jill J. McCluskey & Kristine M. Grimsrud & Hiromi Ouchi & Thomas I. Wahl, 2005. "Bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Japan: consumers' food safety perceptions and willingness to pay for tested beef," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(2), pages 197-209, June.
    15. van Rensburg, Tom M. & Mill, Greig A. & Common, Mick & Lovett, Jon, 2002. "Preferences and multiple use forest management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 231-244, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Corsi, Alessandro, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay in terms of price: an application to organic beef during and after the “mad cow” crisis," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 92(01), pages 25-46, October.
    18. Yamane, Fumihiro, 2010. "Estimation of Consumer Welfare Change from the Revision of Age Criterion for BSE Testing: Hypothetical Revealed Preference Method Using Monitoring Survey Data," Japanese Journal of Agricultural Economics (formerly Japanese Journal of Rural Economics), Agricultural Economics Society of Japan (AESJ), vol. 12, pages 1-19.
    19. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:4:y:2008:i:15:p:1-9 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Stephen Hynes & Daniel Norton & Nick Hanley, 2013. "Adjusting for Cultural Differences in International Benefit Transfer," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(4), pages 499-519, December.
    21. Olof Johansson-Stenman, 1998. "The Importance of Ethics in Environmental Economics with a Focus on Existence Values," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 429-442, April.

    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:hal:journl:hal-02285598. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.