Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Conceptual Approach for a Quantitative Economic Analysis of Farmers’ Decision-Making Regarding Animal Welfare

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decisions related to animal welfare (AW) standards depend on farmer’s multiple goals and values and are constrained by a wide range of external and internal forces. The aim of this paper is twofold, i.e., (1) to develop a theoretical framework for farmers’ AW decisions that incorporates farmers’ goals, use and non-use values and (2) to present an approach to empirically implement the theoretical framework. The farmer as a head of the farm household makes choices regarding production to maximize the utility of the household. The overall utility of the farmer is determined by his multiple objectives. For the analysis of multi-objective problems, the multiple criteria decision-making paradigm provides an appropriate theoretical framework. However, theories from the field of social-psychology are needed to facilitate the identification of all relevant aspects in the decision making (i.e., factors that explain behavior). The practical use of the conceptual framework is demonstrated using a simple numerical application of a multi-objective programming model. Two workshops were devoted to examining the scientific consistency and the practical usefulness of the approach. Implementing this approach will increase knowledge of the main factors and barriers that determine farmers’ decisions with regard to AW standards. This knowledge is relevant during the development of new AW concepts that aims to supply products that comply with above-legal AW standards for middle-market segments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Above-legal AW standards exceed the minimum national legislative standards with regard to keeping of farm animals.

  2. Volwaard is an innovative production system for broilers providing higher AW than intensive systems. The Rondeel and Scharrel concepts are designed for laying hens and exceed legal AW standards. The Better Life hallmark (in Dutch: Beter Leven kenmerk) initiated by the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals (Dierenbescherming) is intended to stimulate farmers to improve on-farm animal welfare by enabling a transparent differentiation among animal products in terms of AW.

References

  • Ács, S. (2006). Bio-economic modelling of conversion from conventional to organic farming. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the attitude-behavior relation: Reasoned and automatic processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33. doi:10.1080/14792779943000116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2008). Scaling and testing multiplicative combinations in the expectancy-value model of attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(9), 2222–2247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous 2. (2004). Houden van Hennen. http://www.duurzameveehouderij.wur.nl/UK/. Accessed 20-09-2011.

  • Anonymous 4. (2004). Welfare quality: Science and society improving animal welfare in the food quality chain. www.welfarequality.net. Accessed 21-09-2011.

  • Anonymous 1. (2008). EconWelfare, good animal welfare in a socio-economic context: Project to promote insight on the impact for the animal, the production chain and European society of upgrading animal welfare standards.

  • Anonymous 3. (2010). Varkansen. http://www.duurzameveehouderij.wur.nl/UK/. Accessed 20-09-2011.

  • Appleby, M. C. (2003). The European ban on conventional cages for laying hens: History and prospects. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 6(2), 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aramyan, L., Ondersteijn, C., Kooten, O., Oude Lansink, A., Wijnands, J. O., & Huirne, R. (2006). Performance indicators in agri-food production chains. In C. J. M. Ondersteijn, J. H. M. Wijnands, R. B. M. Huirne, & O. Van Kooten (Eds.), Quantifying the agri-food supply chain (pp. 49–66). The Netherlands: Springer.

  • Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Edwards-Jones, G., & Arey, D. (2005). Attitudes to farm animal welfare. Journal of Individual Differences, 26(3), 107–120. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.26.3.107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Gibson, G. J., McGregor, M. J., & Dent, J. B. (1996). Attitudes and values of Scottish farmers: “Yeoman” and “entrepreneur” as factors, not distinct types. Rural Sociology, 61(3), 464–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beedell, J. D. C., & Rehman, T. (1999). Explaining farmers’ conservation behaviour: Why do farmers behave the way they do? Journal of Environmental Management, 57(3), 165–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, R. M. (1996). People’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 5(1), 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergevoet, R. H. M. (2005). Entrepreneurship of Dutch dairy farmers. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.

  • Bergevoet, R. H. M., Ondersteijn, C. J. M., Saatkamp, H. W., van Woerkum, C. M. J., & Huirne, R. B. M. (2004). Entrepreneurial behaviour of Dutch dairy farmers under a milk quota system: Goals, objectives and attitudes. Agricultural Systems, 80(1), 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2003.05.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonafos, L., Simonin, D., & Gavinelli, A. (2010). Animal welfare: European legislation and future perspectives. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 37(1), 26–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracke, M. B. M., Greef, K. H. D., & Hopster, H. (2005). Qualitative stakeholder analysis for the development of sustainable monitoring systems for farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18(1), 27–56. doi:10.1007/s10806-004-3085-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capon, C. (2008). Understanding strategic management. London: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemen, R. T., & Reilly, T. (2001). Making hard decisions with decision tools. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnhofer, I., Schneeberger, W., & Freyer, B. (2005). Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agriculture and Human Values, 22(1), 39–52. doi:10.1007/s10460-004-7229-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, F. R. (2001). Strategic management: Concepts (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Boer, I. J. M., & Cornelissen, A. M. G. (2002). A method using Sustainability indicators to compare conventional and animal-friendly egg production systems. Poultry Science, 81(2), 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Buck, A. J., Van Rijn, I., Röling, N. G., & Wossink, G. A. A. (2001). Farmers’ reasons for changing or not changing to more sustainable practices: An exploratory study of arable farming in the Netherlands. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 7(3), 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Koeijer, T. J., Renkema, J. A., & Vanmensvoort, J. J. M. (1995). Environmental-economic analysis of mixed crop-livestock farming. Agricultural Systems, 48(4), 515–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Lauwere, C. C. (2005). The role of agricultural entrepreneurship in Dutch agriculture of today. Agricultural Economics, 33(2), 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wit, B., & Meyer, R. (2004). Strategy: Process, content, context (3rd ed.). Stamford, CT: Thomson Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Ouden, M., Huirne, R. B. M., Dijkhuizen, A. A., & VanBeek, P. (1997). Economic optimization of pork production-marketing chains 2. Modelling outcome. Livestock Production Science, 48(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Wallenius, J., & Zionts, S. (1992). Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: The next ten years. Management Science, 38(5), 645–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Jones, G., Deary, I., & Willock, J. (1998). Incorporating psychological variables in models of farmer behaviour: Does it make for better predictions? Etud. Rech. Syst. Agraires Dév., 31, 153–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • European_Commission. (2007). Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare.

  • Farmar-Bowers, Q., & Lane, R. (2009). Understanding farmers’ strategic decision-making processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1135–1144. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., Triandis, H. C., Kanfer, F. H., Becker, M., Middlestadt, S. E., & Eichler, A. (2001). Factors influencing behavior and behavior change. In A. Baum, T. A. Revenson, & J. E. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, J. W. (1984). The comprehensiveness of strategic decision processes: Extension, observations, future directions. The Academy of Management Journal, 27(3), 445–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, M. G., & Hamilton, S. A. (2011). Principles of epidemiological modelling. Revue Scientifique Et Technique-Office International Des Epizooties, 30(2), 407–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasson, R. (1973). Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24(3), 521–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghadim, A. K. A., & Pannell, D. J. (1999). A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation. Agricultural Economics, 21(2), 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. L., & Ortberg, J. (1983). Moral obligation and attitudes—their relation to behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(5), 1025–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1978). Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research, 5(2), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., & Huber, F. (2000). Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. In A. Gustafsson, A. Herrmann, & F. Huber (Eds.), Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications (pp. 5–45). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Khan, B. (2003). Adoption of new technology. Working paper no. E03-330. Department of Economics, UC Berkeley.

  • Hardaker, J. B., Huirne, R. B. M., Anderson, J. R., & Lien, G. (2004). Coping with risk in agriculture (2nd ed.). Wallingford: CABI.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harland, P., Staats, H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1999). Explaining proenvironmental intention and behavior by personal norms and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(12), 2505–2528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), 287–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, C., Bourlakis, M., & Garrod, G. (2007). Pig in the middle: Farmers and the delivery of farm animal welfare standards. British Food Journal, 109(11), 919–930. doi:10.1108/00070700710835723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, D. (2010). Discussion: The economics of animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 42(3), 453–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, G., Kim, A., & Sohn, S. (2009). Conjoint analysis for luxury brand outlet malls in Korea with consideration of customer lifetime value. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(1), 922–932. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.10.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjærnes, U., Bock, B. B., Higgin, M., & Roex, J. (2009). Farm animal welfare within the supply chain, regulation, agriculture and geography. Welfare quality reports no. 8.

  • Lagerkvist, C. J., Hansson, H., Hess, S., & Hoffman, R. (2011). Provision of farm animal welfare: Integrating productivity and non-use values. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 33(4), 484–509. doi:10.1093/Aepp/Ppr037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagerkvist, C. J., & Hess, S. (2011). A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(1), 55–78. doi:10.1093/Erae/Jbq043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, A. M. (2005). How to build valid and credible simulation models. In M. Kuhl, F. A. Steiger, & J. Joines (Eds.), Winter simulation conference 2005, Orlando, FL (pp. 24–32).

  • Law, A. M., & Kelton, W. D. (1991). Simulation modeling and analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGrew-Hill Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lien, G. (2003). Assisting whole-farm decision-making through stochastic budgeting. Agricultural Systems, 76(2), 399–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohrke, F. T., Holloway, B. B., & Woolley, T. W. (2009). Conjoint analysis in entrepreneurship research: A review and research agenda. Organizational Research Methods, 13(1), 16–30. doi:10.1177/1094428109341992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A., Swait, J. D., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2000). Stated choice methods: Analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Manstead, A. S. R. (2000). The role of moral norm in the attitude-behavior relation. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 11–30). USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuwissen, M. P. M., & Van Der Lans, I. A. (2005). Trade-offs between consumer concerns: An application for pork supply chains. Food Economics—Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C, 2(1), 27–34. doi:10.1080/16507540510033442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Theoret, A. (1976). The structure of unstructured decision-processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(2), 246–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollenhorst, H., Rodenburg, T. B., Bokkers, E. A. M., Koene, P., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2005). On-farm assessment of laying hen welfare: A comparison of one environment-based and two animal-based methods. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 90(3–4), 277–291. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.08.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nocella, G., Hubbard, L., & 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. doi:10.1093/aepp/ppp009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuthall, P. L. (2010). Farm business management—the human factor. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohlmer, B., Olson, K., & Brehmer, B. (1998). Understanding farmers’ decision making processes and improving managerial assistance. Agricultural Economics, 18(3), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. V., & Lund, M. (2011). The impact of socio-economic factors and incentives on farmers’ investment behaviour. Food Economics—Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section C, 8(3), 173–185. doi:10.1080/16507541.2011.642501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., Verstegen, J. A. A. M., & Van den Hengel, J. J. (2001). Investment decision making in Dutch greenhouse horticulture. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, 49(4), 357–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padel, S. (2001). Conversion to organic farming: A typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis, 41(1), 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pannell, D. J. (2003). Uncertainty and adoption of sustainable farming systems. In B. A. Babcock, R. W. Fraser, & J. N. Lekakis (Eds.), Risk management and the environment: Agriculture in perspective (pp. 67–81). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pietola, K. S., & Oude Lansink, A. (2001). Farmer response to policies promoting organic farming technologies in Finland. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu, Z. (2005). Using multi-criteria decision models to assess the economic and environmental impacts of farming decisions in an agricultural watershed. Review of Agricultural Economics, 27(2), 229–244. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2005.00223.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehman, T., & Romero, C. (1993). The application of the MCDM paradigm to the management of agricultural systems—some basic considerations. Agricultural Systems, 41(3), 239–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romero, C., Amador, F., & Barco, A. (1987). Multiple objectives in agricultural planning: A compromise programming application. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 69(1), 78–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, M., & Farrar, S. (2000). Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ, 320(7248), 1530–1533. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sargent, R. (2007). Verification and validation of simulation models. In S. G. Henderson, B. Biller, M. H. Hsieh, J. Shortle, J. D. Tew, & R. A. Barton (Eds.), Winter simulation conference 2007, Washington DC, (pp. 124–137).

  • Schoon, B., & Te Grotenhuis, R. (2000). Values of farmers, sustainability and agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12(1), 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1968). Words, deeds, and the perception of consequences and responsibility in action situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(3), 232–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. T., Sandøe, P., & Halberg, N. (2001). Animal welfare as one among several values to be considered at farm level: The idea of an ethical account for livestock farming. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section A—Animal Science, 51, 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stott, A., Milne, C., Goddard, P., & Waterhouse, A. (2005). Projected effect of alternative management strategies on profit and animal welfare in extensive sheep production systems in Great Britain. Livestock Production Science, 97(2–3), 161–171. doi:10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.04.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tauson, R. (2005). Management and housing systems for layers—effects on welfare and production. Worlds Poultry Science Journal, 61(3), 477–490. doi:10.1079/Wps200569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2007). Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 15(3), 91–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H. R. (2010). Intermediate microeconomics (8th ed.). London: W.W. Norton Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhoog, H., Lund, V., & Alrøe, H. F. (2004). Animal welfare, ethics and organic farming. In M. Vaarst, S. Roderick, V. Lund, & W. Lockeretz (Eds.), Animal health and welfare in organic agriculture. London: CAB International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verspecht, A., Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Zoons, J., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2011). Economic impact of decreasing stocking densities in broiler production in Belgium. Poultry Science, 90(8), 1844–1851. doi:10.3382/ps.2010-01277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vosough-Ahmadi, B., Stott, A. W., Baxter, E. M., Lawrence, A., & Edwards, S. A. (2011). Animal welfare and economic optimisation of farrowing systems. Animal Welfare, 20(11), 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, M. T., & Moss, J. E. (2002). Farmer decision-making with conflicting goals: A recursive strategic programming analysis. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(1), 82–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallenius, J., Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Zionts, S., & Deb, K. (2008). Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science, 54(7), 1336–1349. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weersink, A., Jeffrey, S., & Pannell, D. (2002). Farm-level modeling for bigger issues. Review of Agricultural Economics, 24(1), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willock, J., Deary, I. J., McGregor, M. M., Sutherland, A., Edwards-Jones, G., Morgan, O., et al. (1999). Farmers’ attitudes, objectives, behaviors, and personality traits: The Edinburgh study of decision making on farms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(1), 5–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was financially supported by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs within the program entitled The Value of Animal Welfare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business Economics Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    É. Gocsik, H. W. Saatkamp & A. G. J. M. Oude Lansink

  2. Agricultural Economics Research Institute, LEI Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 35, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    C. C. de Lauwere

Authors
  1. É. Gocsik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. W. Saatkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. C. de Lauwere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. G. J. M. Oude Lansink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to É. Gocsik.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gocsik, É., Saatkamp, H.W., de Lauwere, C.C. et al. A Conceptual Approach for a Quantitative Economic Analysis of Farmers’ Decision-Making Regarding Animal Welfare. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 287–308 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9464-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-013-9464-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation