Skip Navigation



European Review of Agricultural Economics Advance Access published online on September 19, 2007
European Review of Agricultural Economics, doi:10.1093/erae/jbm025
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/3/321    most recent
jbm025v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carlsson, F.
Right arrow Articles by Lagerkvist, C. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press and Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics 2007; all rights reserved. For permissions, please email journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter

Fredrik Carlsson

Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University, Sweden

Peter Frykblom and Carl Johan Lagerkvist

Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

Corresponding author: Carl Johan Lagerkvist, Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. 7013, 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: carl-johan.lagerkvist{at}ekon.slu.se

Received October 2004; Revision received July 2007. Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for certain non-market food process attributes were investigated using a choice experiment. Swedish consumers were found to be willing to pay a price premium for the use of mobile abattoirs for cattle but not for broilers. We used two different survey versions, with and without an opt-out alternative. There is no evidence that omission of the opt-out alternative leads to biased choices. In addition, respondents who chose to opt-out were no different from those making trade-offs between attributes. The inclusion of an opt-out alternative has no significant effect on the marginal WTP. Based on estimated distributions of WTP and available cost estimates, the market share for mobile abattoirs is predicted. Here we do find differences between the two survey versions: the version with an opt-out alternative revealed greater unobserved heterogeneity.

Keywords: animal welfare, choice experiments, slaughter, willingness-to-pay

JEL classification: Q13, Q18, D12


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 EUR REV AGRIC ECONHome page
W. Hu
My favourite is not on the shelf: effects of the revealed-preference bundle on consumers' stated choice
Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ., March 1, 2008; 35(1): 29 - 50.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.