An Agent-based Model of Food Safety Practices Adoption

  • Tim VerwaartEmail author
  • Natalia I. Valeeva
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 652)


Food processors and governments have an interest to motivate suppliers of animal products to implement food safety measures. This paper proposes an agentbased simulation model to compare possible consequences of alternative communication programs and incentive systems. The agent model combines economic incentive models with social-psychological survey results in an approach based on the theory of planned behavior. Food safety actions follow from producers’ attitudes, social network influences, and perceived availability of resources and opportunities to implement the measures. The model allows for heterogeneity in the agent population, for instance with respect to openness to communications and factors that motivate producers to implement food safety measures. A sensitivity analysis can be performed for both aggregate outputs, such as food safety risk reduction downstream in the supply chain, and individual agent performance, such as the response to different incentives and communications. Conclusions are drawn about the model’s feasibility for food safety policy support.


Supply Chain Food Safety Behavioral Control Information Type Communication Campaign 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armitage CJ, Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40:471–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burgers SLGE, Hofstede GJ, Jonker CM, Verwaart T (2010) Sensitivity Analysis of an Agentbased Model of Culture’s Consequences for Trade. In: LiCalzi M et al. (eds) Progress in Artificial Economics, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 645, pp. 253–264. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gilbert N (2008) Agent-based Models. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Halasa T, Nielen M, Huirne RBM, Hogeveen H (2009) Stochastic bio-economic model of bovine intramammary infection. Livestock Science 124:295–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hogeveen H, Huijps K, Lam TJGM (2011) Economic aspects of mastitis: New developments. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 59:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huijps K, Lam TJGM, Hogeveen H (2008) Costs of mastitis: facts and perception. Journal of Dairy Research 75:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Huijps, K, Hogeveen, H, Lam, TJGM, Oude Lansink, AGJM (2010). Costs and efficacy of management measures to improve udder health on Dutch dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 93:115-124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jansen MJW, Rossing WAH, Daamen RA (1994) Monte Carlo estimation of uncertainty contributions from several independent multivariate sources. In: Grasman J, van Straten G (eds) Predictability and Nonlinear Modeling in Natural Sciences and Economics, pp.334–343. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jansen J, van den Borne BHP, Renes RJ, van Schaijk G, Lam TJGM, Leeuwis C (2009) Explaining mastitis incidence in Dutch dairy farming: The influence of farmers’attitudes and behaviour. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 92:210–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jansen, J, Renes, RJ, Lam, TJGM (2010). Evaluation of two communication strategies to improve udder health management. Journal of Dairy Science 93:604–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jansen J, Steuten CDM, Renes RJ, Aarts N, Lam TJGM (2010) Debunking the myth of the hard-to-reach farmer: Effective communication on udder health. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 1296–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    King RP, Backus GBC, van der Gaag MA (2002) Incentive system for food quality control with repeated deliveries. European Review of Agricultural Economics 34:81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kleter GA, Prandini A, Filippi L, Marvin HJP (2009) Identification of potentially emerging food safety issues. Food and Chemical Toxicology 47:932–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Valeeva NI, LamTJGM, Hoogeveen H (2007) Motivations of Dairy Farmers to Improve Mastitis Management. Journal of Dairy Science 90:4466–4477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Wagenberg CPA, Backus GBC, Kuiper WE, van der Vorst JGAJ, Urlings HAP (2010) Incentive mechanisms for liver lesion control in finishing pigs in the Netherlands. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 93:19–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LEI Wageningen URLS den HaagThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations