Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:03:59.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use and non-use values as motivational construct dimensions for farm animal welfare: impacts on the economic outcome for the farm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2018

H. Hansson ,
C. J. Lagerkvist  and
G. Azar
H. Hansson*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Ulls väg 27, PO Box 7013, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
C. J. Lagerkvist
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Ulls väg 27, PO Box 7013, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
G. Azar
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Ulls väg 27, PO Box 7013, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study explored how farmers’ motivation in terms of use values and/or non-use values to work with farm animal welfare are associated with the economic outcome for the farm. Use values in farm animal welfare refer to economic value derived from productivity and profitability considerations. Non-use values in farm animal welfare refer to economic value derived from good animal welfare, irrespective of the use the farmer derives from the animal, currently or in the future. The analysis was based on detailed information about the income statements of a sample of Swedish dairy farmers, obtained from the Swedish Farm Economic Survey, complemented with survey information about their perceived use and non-use values in farm animal welfare. The findings suggest that farm economic outcome is significantly associated with motivation in terms of use values, but not so much with motivation in terms of non-use values. This is interesting from a policy point of view, because it indicates that farmers with different approaches to farm animal welfare may experience different economic outcomes for their farms. Findings can, for instance, be used to strengthen farmers’ engagement in various private quality assurance standards, which generally focus on values of non-use type, by pointing to that realisation of such values will not impair the economic outcome of the farms. Moreover, findings also suggest that farmers’ economic incentives for engagement in such standards may need to be further strengthened in order to become more attractive, as findings point to that a focus on non-use values generally is not associated with more favourable economic outcomes.

Keywords

dairy farmseconomic outcomefarm animal welfarenon-use valuesuse values
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 10 , October 2018 , pp. 2147 - 2155
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Brunel University, London, Uxbridge, UK

References

Anthony, RN, Govindarajan, V, Frank, GH, Hartmann, KK and Nilsson, G 2014. Management control systems. McGrawHill Education, Berkshire, UK.Google Scholar
Atkinson, JW and Birch, D 1970. The dynamics of action. John Wiley, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
Averós, X, Aparicio, MA, Ferrari, P, Guy, JH, Hubbard, C, Schmid, O, Ilieski, V and Spoolder, HAM 2013. The effect of steps to promote higher levels of farm animal welfare across the EU. Societal versus animal scientists’ perceptions of animal welfare. Animals 3, 786–807.Google Scholar
Bock, BB, Prutzer, M, Kling Eveillard, F and Dockes, A 2007. Farmers’ relationship with different animals: the importance of getting close to the animals. Case studies of French, Swedish and Dutch cattle, pig and poultry farmers. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 15, 108–125.Google Scholar
Borgen, SO and Skarstad, GA 2007. Norwegian pig farmers’ motivations for improving animal welfare. British Food Journal 109, 891–905.Google Scholar
Breuer, K, Hemsworth, P, Barnett, J, Matthews, L and Coleman, G 2000. Behavioural response to humans and the productivity of commercial dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 66, 273–288.Google Scholar
de Jonge, J and van Trijp, HCM 2013. The impact of broiler production system practices on consumer perceptions of animal welfare. Poultry Science 92, 3080–3095.Google Scholar
Dockès, AC and Kling-Eveillard, F 2006. Farmers’ and advisers’ representations of animals and animal welfare. Livestock Science 103, 243–249.Google Scholar
Franz, A, Deimel, I and Spiller, A 2012. Concerns about animal welfare: a cluster analysis of German pig farmers. British Food Journal 114, 1445–1462.Google Scholar
Gocsik, E, Saatkamp, HW, de Lauwere, CC and Oude Lansink, AGJM 2014. A conceputal approach for a quantitative economic analysis of farmers’ decision-making regarding animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27, 287–308.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, P and Bargh, J 1996. The psychology of action: linking cognition and motivation to behavior. Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Hanna, D, Sneddon, I and Beattie, V 2009. The relationship between the stockperson’s personality and attitudes and the productivity of dairy cows. Animal 3, 737–743.Google Scholar
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2014. Defining and measuring farmers’ attitudes to farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 23, 47–56.Google Scholar
Hansson, H and Lagerkvist, CJ 2016. Dairy farmers’ use and non-use values in animal welfare: determining the empirical content and structure with anchored best-worst scaling. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 579–592.Google Scholar
Hemsworth, PH, Coleman, GJ, Barnett, JL, Borg, S and Dowling, S 2002. The effects of cognitive behavioral intervention on the attitude and behavior of stockpersons and the behavior and productivity of commercial dairy cows. Journal of Animal Science 80, 68–78.Google Scholar
Jarvis, CB, MacKenzie, SB and Podsakoff, PM 2003. A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research 30, 199–218.Google Scholar
Kauppinen, T, Vesala, KM and Valros, A 2012. Farmer attitude toward improvement of animal welfare is correlated with piglet production parameters. Livestock Science 143, 142–150.Google Scholar
Kielland, C, Skjerve, E, Østerås, O and Zanella, AJ 2010. Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 2998–3006.Google Scholar
Kling-Eveillard, F, Dockes, AC and Souquet, C 2007. Attitudes of French pig farmers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 109, 859–869.Google Scholar
Kopetz, CE, Kruglanski, AW, Arens, ZG, Etkin, J and Johnson, HM 2012. The dynamics of consumer behavior: a goal systemic perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22, 208–223.Google Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ, Hansson, H, Hess, S and Hoffman, R 2011. Provision of farm animal welfare: integrating productivity and non-use values. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 33, 484–509.Google Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ and Hess, S 2011. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics 38, 55–78.Google Scholar
Mayfield, L, Bennett, R, Tranter, R and Wooldridge, M 2007. Consumption of welfare-friendly food products in Great Britain Italy and Sweden and how it may be influenced by consumer attitudes to and behaviour towards animal welfare attributes. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15, 59–73.Google Scholar
McInerney, J 2004. Animal welfare economics and policy report on a study undertaken for the Farm & Animal Health Economics Division of Defra. Exeter, UK.Google Scholar
Ramsey, JB 1969. Tests for specification errors in classical linear least-squares regression analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 31, 350–371.Google Scholar
Schreiner, JA and Hess, S 2017. The role of non-use values in dairy farmers’ willingness to accept a farm animal welfare programme. Journal of Agricultural Economics 68, 553–578.Google Scholar
StataCorp 2017. Stata statistical software: release 15. StataCorp. LLC, College Station, TX, USA.Google Scholar
Te Velde, H, Aarts, N and Van Woerkum, C 2002. Dealing with ambivalence: farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 15, 203–219.Google Scholar
Verbeke, W and Viaene, J 2000. Ethical challenges for livestock production: meeting consumer concerns about meat safety and animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12, 141–151.Google Scholar
Waiblinger, S, Menke, C and Coleman, G 2002. The relationship between attitudes, personal characteristics and behaviour of stockpeople and subsequent behaviour and production of dairy cows. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79, 195–219.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Hansson et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Hansson et al. supplementary material(File)
File 38.4 KB