Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T23:21:31.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The determinants of the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products in Spain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

A Gracia
A Gracia*
Affiliation:
Unidad de Economía Agroalimentaria y de los Recursos Naturales, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Avda Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
*
email: agracia@aragon.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyse the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products and determine the factors explaining this intention. Additionally, a model of the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products has been developed based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). This model has been specified as a two-equation multivariate ordered probit model and estimated using data from a survey conducted in Spain in 2008. Results indicate that one of the most important factors associated with the intention to purchase animal welfare-friendly meat products was consumer self-identification with ethical issues. Second, findings suggested that, as the Theory of Planned Behaviour states, other factors related to the intention to purchase these products were attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control.

Keywords

animal welfareattitudesconsumerordered probitsubjective normsTheory of Planned Behaviour
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 255 - 265
Copyright
© 2013 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

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.)

References

Ajzen, I 1985 From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl, J and Beckmann, J (eds) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior pp 11–39. Springer: Berlin, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I 1991 The Theory of Planned Behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I and Fishbein, M 1980 Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Hills, OH, USAGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R 1996 Willingness-to-pay measures of public support for farm animal welfare legislation. Veterinary Record 139: 320–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/vr.139.13.320CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennett, R 1997 Farm animal welfare and food policy. Food Policy 22(4): 281–288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(97)00019-5Google Scholar
Bennett, R and Blaney, RJP 2003 Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method. Agricultural Economics 29: 85–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2003.tb00149.xGoogle Scholar
Bennett, R and Larson, D 1996 Contingent valuation of the perceived benefits of farm animal welfare legislation: an exploratory survey. Journal of Agricultural Economics 47(2): 224–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1996.tb00686.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, BB and Van Huik, MM 2007 Animal welfare: the attitudes and behaviour of European pig farmers. British Food Journal 109(11): 931–944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835732Google Scholar
Boogaard, BK, Oosting, SJ and Bock, BB 2006 Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: a quantitative study in The Netherlands. Livestock Science 104: 13–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredahl, L 2001 Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods. Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy 24: 23–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010950406128Google Scholar
Bredahl, L, Grunert, G and Frewer, LJ 1998 Consumer attitudes and decision making with regard to genetically engineered food products. A review of the literature and a presentation of models for future research. Journal of Consumer Policy 21: 251–277Google Scholar
Burrell, A and Vrieze, B 2003 Ethical motivation of Dutch egg consumers. Tijdschrift voor Sociaal Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek voor de Landbouw 18(1): 30–42Google Scholar
Carlsson, F, Frykblom, P, and Lagerkvist, CJ 2005 Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agriculture. Ambio 4–5: 366–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, F, Frykblom, P and Lagerkvist, CJ 2007 Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics 34(3): 321–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbm025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, MF 2007 Consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Quality and Preference 18(7): 1008–1021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, MF 2008 An integrated research framework to understand consumer attitudes and purchase intentions toward genetically modified foods, British Food Journal 110(6): 559–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700810877889Google Scholar
Chilton, SM, Burgess, D and Hutchinson, WG 2006 The relative value of farm animal welfare. Ecological Economic 59: 353–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, AJ, Kerr, GN and Moore, K 2002 Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology 23(5): 557–572. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00117-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council Directive 1998 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 Concerning the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes. (OJ L 221 8.8.1998; p 23). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:1998:221:0023:0027:EN:PDF)Google Scholar
Council Directive 1999 1999/74/EC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Laying Hens. (OJ L 203, 3.8.1999; p 53). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex UriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31999L0074:EN:HTML)Google Scholar
Council Directive 2007 2007/43/EC Laying Down Minimum Rules for the Protection of Chickens kept for Meat Production. (OJ L 183, 12.7.2007; p 19). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:182:0019:0028:EN:PDF)Google Scholar
Council Directive 2008a 2008/119/EC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Calves. (OJ L 10, 15.1.2009; p 7). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:010:0007:0013:EN:PDF)Google Scholar
Council Directive 2008b 2008/120/EC Laying Down Minimum Standards for the Protection of Pigs. (OJ L 47, 18.2.2009; p 5). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUri Serv/LexUriServ. do?uri=OJ:L:2009:047:0005:0013:EN:PDF)Google Scholar
Council Directive 2009 1099/2009/EC On the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing. (OJ L 303, 18.11.2009; p 1). Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:303:0001:0030:EN:PDF)Google Scholar
Council Regulation 2005 No 1/2005 On the Protection of Animals During Transport and Related Operations and Amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC) No 1255/97. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. do?uri=OJ:L:2005:003:0001:0044:EN:PDF)Google Scholar
de Magistris, T and Gracia, A 2012 Do consumers pay attention to the organic label when shopping organic food in Italy?, Organic food and agriculture. New trends and developments in the social sciences. http://www.intechopen.com/books/organic-food-and-agriculture-new-trends-and-developments-in-the-social-sciences/do-consumers-pay-attention-to-the-organic-label-when-shopping-organic-food-in-italy-Google Scholar
Eagly, AH and Chaiken, S 1993 The Psychology of Attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Fort Worth, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
European Commision 2007a Animal Welfare. Factsheet. Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/factsheet_farmed03-2007_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Commission 2007b Eurobarometer on Attitudes of EU Citizens towards Animal Welfare. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf.Google Scholar
European Commision 2010 Action and understanding: the animal welfare newsletter. Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/docs/aw_newsletter_01_June 2010_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M 1963 An investigation of relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations 16: 233–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00187267630 1600302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frewer, LJ, Kole, A, Van de Kroon, SMA and De Lauwere, C 2005 Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18(4): 345–367. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-1489-2Google Scholar
Gil, JM, Gracia, A and Sanchez, M 2000 Market segmentation and willingness to pay for organic products in Spain. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 3: 207–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7508(01)00040-4Google Scholar
Gracia, A, Loureiro, ML and Nayga, RM Jr 2011 Valuing an EU animal welfare label using experimental auctions. Agricultural Economics 42: 669–677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2011.00543.xGoogle Scholar
Hajivassiliou, VA and McFadden, D 1998 The method of simulated scores for the estimation of LDV models. Econometrica 66: 863–896. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2999576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, H, Lobao, L and Sharp, J 2006 Public concern with animal well-being: place, social structural location, and individual experience. Rural Sociology 71(3): 399–428. http://dx.doi.org/10.1526/003601106778070617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling-Eveillard, F, Docke's, A-C and Souquet, C 2007 Attitudes of French pig farmers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 109(11): 859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lagerkvist, CJ, Carlsson, F and Viske, D 2006 Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. AgBioForu 9(1): 51–58Google Scholar
Lassen, J, SandØe, P and Forkman, B 2006 Happy pigs are dirty conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science 103(3): 221–230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liljenstolpe, C 2008 Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness: An International Journal 24(1): 67–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobb, AE, Mazzocchi, M and Traill, WB 2007 Modelling risk perception and trust in food safety information within the theory of planned behaviour. Food Quality and Preference 18(2): 384–395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahon, D, Cowan, C and McCarthy, M 2006 The role of attitudes, subjective norm, perceived control and habit in the consumption of ready meals and takeaways in Great Britain. Food Quality and Preference 17: 474–481. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.06.001Google Scholar
Maria, GA 2006 Public perception of farm animal welfare in Spain. Livestock Science 103(3): 250–256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.011Google Scholar
Menghi, A 2007 Italian pig producers’ attitude toward animal welfare. British Food Journal 109(11): 870–878. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835688Google Scholar
Napolitano, F, Pacelli, C, Girolami, A and Braghieri, A 2008 Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yoghurt. American Dairy Science Association 91: 910–917. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nocella, G, Hubbard, L and Scarpa, R 2010 Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: results of a cross-national survey. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 32(2): 275–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppp009Google Scholar
Shaw, DS and Shiu, E 2002a The role of ethical obligation and self-identity in ethical consumer choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies 26(2): 109–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1470-6431.2002.00214.xGoogle Scholar
Shaw, DS and Shiu, E 2002b An assessment of ethical obligation and self-identity in ethical consumer decision-making: a structural equation modelling approach. International Journal of Consumer Studies 26: 286–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1470-6431.2002.00255.xGoogle Scholar
Shaw, DS and Shiu, E 2003 Ethics in consumer choice: a multivariate modelling approach. European Journal of Marketing 37(10): 1485–1498. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310487202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, DS, Shiu, E and Clarke, I 2000 The contribution of ethical obligation and self-identity to the theory of planned behaviour: an exploration of ethical consumers. Journal of Marketing Management 16(8): 879–894. http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725700784683672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, P and Shepherd, R 1992 Self-identity and the theory of planned behavior: assessing the role of identification with ‘Green Consumerism’. Social Psychology Quarterly 55(4): 388–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2786955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, P, Hedderley, D and Shepherd, R 1992 An investigation into the relationship between perceived control, attitude variability and the consumption of two common foods. European Journal of Social Psychology 22: 55–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420220107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparks, P, Shepherd, R and Frewer, LJ 1995 Assessing and structuring attitudes toward the use of gene technology in food production: the role of perceived ethical obligation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 16: 267–285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1603_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefani, G, Cavicchi, A, Romano, D and Lobb, AE 2008 Determinants of intention to purchase chicken in Italy: the role of consumer risk perception and trust in different information sources. Agribusiness 24(4): 523–537. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agr.20177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tawse, J 2010 Consumer attitudes towards farm animals and their welfare: a pig production case study. Bioscience Horizons 3(2): 156–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biohorizons/hzq020Google Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2007 Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15(3): 84–100Google Scholar
Vanhonacker, F, Verbeke, W, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, FAM 2008 Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science 116(1): 126–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Huik, MM and Bock, BB 2007 Attitudes of Dutch pig farmers towards animal welfare. British Food Journal 109(11): 879–890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700710835697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdurme, A and Viaene, J 2003 Consumer beliefs and attitude towards genetically modified food: basis for segmentation and implication for communication. Agribusiness 19: 91–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agr.10045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhue, D and Verzeijden, D 2003 Burgeroordelen over de Veehouding. Uitkomsten Publieksonderzoek Research Paper, Veldkamp, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. [Title translation: Citizens’ judgement about livestock production, results of a public research]Google Scholar