Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:39:39.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring the value to the public of pig welfare improvements: a contingent valuation approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

CA Glass ,
WG Hutchinson  and
VE Beattie
CA Glass*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, Queen's University, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
WG Hutchinson
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, Queen's University, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
VE Beattie
Affiliation:
Devenish Nutrition Limited, 96 Duncrue Street, Belfast BT3 9AR, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: [email protected]
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.

The welfare of farm animals is a policy area that has increased greatly in importance in recent years. When deciding whether a proposed policy should be implemented, it can be useful for policymakers to compare the costs of the proposed improvement with the perceived benefits. The costs are relatively straightforward to calculate but little is known about the benefits. The Contingent Valuation Method (CVM), a direct survey-based method, can be used to shed some light on this. This approach elicits the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for the provision of some public good or service. This paper reports the results of a contingent valuation study of the value of welfare improvements for growing pigs. Attitudes and opinions with regard to farm animal welfare are explored and WTP elicited for various pig welfare improvements including increases in space allowance, environmental enrichment and research into improved pig housing design. The results reveal a positive WTP for these improvements. However, it is also noteworthy that a significant proportion of the general public is willing to pay nothing for these improvements. Overall, the study illustrates the usefulness of the CVM approach as a tool for policymakers in assessing the merits of possible policy initiatives affecting the welfare of animals.

Keywords

animal welfarecontingent valuationpigsspike modelssubstitution effectswillingness-to-pay
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 61 - 69
Copyright
© 2005 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

An, Y and Ayala, A 1996 A Mixture Model of Willingness to Pay Distributions. Working Paper. Duke University and Central Bank: EquadorGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K, Solow, R, Portney, P, Leamer, E, Radner, R and Schuman, H 1993 Contingent valuation methodology report, report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Resister 58(10): 4602–4614Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1995 Effects of environmental enrichment on behaviour and productivity of growing pigs. Animal Welfare 4: 207–220Google Scholar
Beattie, VE, Walker, N and Sneddon, IA 1996 An investigation of the effect of environmental enrichment and space allowance on the behaviour and production of growing pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 48: 151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett RM (ed) 1994 Valuing Farm Animal Welfare — Proceedings of a Workshop held at the University of Reading, 30 September 1993, Occasional paper no. 3. University of Reading: Reading, UKGoogle Scholar
Bennett, RM 1996 People's willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 5: 3–11Google Scholar
Bennett, RM 1998 Measuring public support for animal welfare: a case study of cage egg production. Animal Welfare 7: 1–10Google Scholar
Bennett, RM 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
Dillman, DA 1978 Mail and Telephone Surveys — The Total Design Method. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UKGoogle Scholar
Ewbank, R and Bryant, MJ 1972 Aggressive behaviour amongst groups of domesticated pigs kept at various stocking rates. Animal Behaviour 20: 21–28CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fredman, P 1994 A Test of Non-Response in a Mail Contingent Valuation Survey, Working Paper. Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Umeå, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Hanemann, WM, Loomis, JB and Kanninen, BJ 1991 Statistical efficiency of double-bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73: 255–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, G 2001 LAWS Guide to Lobbying. Labour Animal Welfare Society: Walsall, UKGoogle Scholar
Hoehn, JP and Loomis, JB 1993 Substitution effects in the valuation of multiple environmental programs. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 25: 56–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoehn, JP and Randall, A 1987 A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 14: 226–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoehn, JP and Randall, A 1989 Too many proposals pass the benefit–cost test. American Economic Review 79: 544–551Google Scholar
Hurnik, JF and Lewis, NJ 1991 Use of body surface area to set minimum space allowance for confined pigs and cattle. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 71: 577–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, AH 1971 Biological implications of intensive swine rearing systems. Journal of Animal Science 31: 560–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D and Knetsch, J 1992a Valuing public goods: “the purchase of moral satisfaction”. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 57–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriström, B 1997 Spike models in contingent valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 135–139Google Scholar
Mattsson, L and Li, C 1994 Variations Between Response and Non-response Categories in a Mail Contingent Valuation Survey, Working Paper 149. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Forest Economics: Umeå, SwedenGoogle Scholar
Meunier-Salaun, MC, Vantrimponte, MN, Raab, A and Dantzer, R 1987 Effect of floor area restriction upon performance, behaviour and physiology of growing-finishing pigs. Journal of Animal Science 64: 1371–1377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, R C and Carson, RT 1989 Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Resources for the Future: Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
ONS (Office for National Statistics) 2004 The Expenditure and Food Survey. Office for National Statistics: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Randolph, JH, Cromwell, GL, Stakly, TS and Kratzer, DD 1981 Effects of group size and space allowance on performance and behaviour of swine. Journal of Animal Science 53: 922–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiterkamp, WA 1987 The behaviour of grower pigs in relation to housing systems. Netherland Journal of Agricultural Science 35: 67–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, TW 1983 The hidden 25 percent: an analysis of non-response on the general social survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 47(3): 386–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneddon, IA and Beattie, VE 1995 Improving the welfare of pigs. Irish Journal of Psychology 16: 418–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, A, Jones, C and Sheatsley, PB 1981 Non-response bias for attitude questions. Public Opinion Quarterly 45: 359–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar