Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T18:00:49.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Public Support for Animal Welfare Legislation: A Case Study of Cage Egg Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

R Bennett
R Bennett*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6AR, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A contingent valuation survey of 2000 people in Great Britain was conducted to find out about people's concerns about farm animal welfare and their willingness to pay to support legislation to phase out the use of cages in egg production in the European Union (EU) by 2005. The survey found that respondents were concerned about a range of farm animal welfare issues, and that the majority supported the proposed legislation and stated that they were willing to pay a significant increase on the current price of eggs to support it. People's willingness to pay to support the legislation would appear to outweigh the extra resource costs of producing eggs without using cages. However, possible sources of bias in the survey and the validity of the willingness to pay measure estimated are discussed. It is concluded that such measures must be interpreted with caution, but can be useful indicators of people's concerns about animal welfare issues and their preferences for public policies on animal welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarecontingent valuation surveyegg productionlegislationpublic concernswillingness to pay
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
© 1998 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Andreoni, J 1990 Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal 100: 464–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K, Solow, R, Portney, P R, Learner, E E, Radner, R and Schuman, H 1993 Report of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Panel on Contingent Valuation. Resources for the Future: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R M 1995 The value of farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural Economics 46: 46–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R M 1996 People's willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 5: 3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R M and Larson, D 1996 Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: an exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 47: 224–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CACI 1993 ACORN User Guide. CACI Limited: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Carson, R T and Mitchell, R C 1995 Sequencing and nesting in contingent valuation surveys. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28: 155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearne, A and Lavelle, D 1996 Segmenting the UK egg market: results of a survey of consumer attitudes and perceptions. British Food Journal 98: 7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, M, Loomis, J and Kanninen, B 1991 Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 1255–1263Google Scholar
Kanninen, B J 1993 Optimal experimental design for double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Land Economics 69: 138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) 1996 Eggs Statistics 47. Government Statistical Service: London, UKGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D 1994 Contingent valuation and social choice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76: 689–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mclnerney, J P 1994 Animal welfare: an economic perspective. Paper first presented at the Agricultural Economics Society Conference, Oxford, 1993, In: Bennett R M (ed) Valuing Farm Animal Welfare. Proceedings of a workshop held at the University of Reading, September 1993. Occasional Paper No. 3 pp 9-25. Department of Agricultural Economics and Management, University of Reading: Reading, UKGoogle Scholar
Mishan, E J 1993 Economists versus the greens: an exposition and a critique. The Political Quarterly 64: 222–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R C and Carson, R T 1989 Using Surveys to Value Public Goods. The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
Morris, L 1996 The Ethical Consumer. A New Force in the Food Sector? Leatherhead Food Research Association: Surrey, UKGoogle Scholar
Nix, J 1995 Farm Management Pocketbook, 26th edition pp 86. Wye College, University of London: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Roberts, D and Farrar, J 1993 The Economics of Egg Production 1992. Special Studies in Agricultural Economics, Report No.22. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Manchester: Manchester, UKGoogle Scholar
Spedding, C R W 1993 Animal welfare policy in Europe. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6: 110–117Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc 1989 SAS/STA T Users ‘ Guide Version 6, Fourth Edition. SAS Inc: Cary, North Carolina, USAGoogle Scholar
Van Horne, P L M 1996 Production and economic results of commercial flocks with white layers in aviary systems and battery cages. British Poultry Science 37: 255–261CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed