Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies

Open access
Clark, Beth, Stewart, Gavin B., Panzone, Luca A., Kyriazakis, Ilias, Frewer, Lynn J.·2017·Food Policy
DOI 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The sustainable intensification of animal production systems is increasing as a consequence of increased demand for foods originating from animals. Production diseases are particularly endemic in intensive production systems, and can negatively impact upon farm animal welfare. There is an increasing need to develop policies regarding animal production diseases, sustainable intensification, and animal welfare which incorporate consumer priorities as well as technical assessments of farm animal welfare. Consumers and/or citizens may have concerns about intensive production systems, and whether animal production disease represent a barrier to consumer acceptance of their increased use. There is a considerable body of research focused on consumer willingness-to-pay (WTP) for improved animal welfare. It is not clear how this relates specifically to a preference for reduced animal production disease incidence in animal production systems. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to establish the publics’ WTP for farm animal welfare, with a focus on production diseases which arise in intensive systems. Systematic review methodology combined with data synthesis was applied to integrate existing knowledge regarding consumer WTP for animal welfare, and reduced incidence of animal production diseases. Multiple databases were searched to identify relevant studies. A screening process, using a set of pre-determined inclusion criteria, identified 54 studies, with the strength of evidence and uncertainty for each study being assessed. A random effects meta-analysis was used to explore heterogeneity in relation to a number of factors, with a cumulative meta-analysis conducted to establish changes in WTP over time. The results indicated a small, positive WTP (0.63 standard deviations) for farm animal welfare varying in relation to a number of factors including animal type and region. Socio-demographic characteristics explained the most variation in the data. An evidence gap was highlighted in relation to reduced WTP for specific production diseases associated with the intensification of production, with only 4 of the 54 studies identified being related to this. A combination of market and government based policy solutions appears to be the best solution for improving farm animal welfare standards in the future, enabling the diverse public preferences to be taken into consideration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Baltzer, 2004, Consumers’ willingness to pay for food quality–the case of eggs, Food Econ.-Acta Agric. Scand. Section C, 1, 78
  2. Bennett, 1997, Farm animal welfare and food policy, Food Policy, 22, 281, 10.1016/S0306-9192(97)00019-5 · DOI
  3. Bennett, 1995, The value of farm animal welfare, J. Agric. Econ., 46, 46, 10.1111/j.1477-9552.1995.tb00751.x · DOI
  4. Bennett, 1996, People’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare, Anim Welf., 5, 3, 10.1017/S0962728600018285 · DOI
  5. Bernard, 2009, What is it about organic milk? An experimental analysis, Am. J. Agric. Econ., 91, 826, 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01258.x · DOI
  6. Bock, 2007, Animal welfare: the attitudes and behavior of European pig farmers, Brit. Food J., 109, 931, 10.1108/00070700710835732 · DOI
  7. Breidert, 2006, A review of methods of willingness-to-pay, Innovative Market., 2, 8
  8. Broom, 2010, Animal welfare: an aspect of care, sustainability, and food quality required by the public, J. Vet. Med. Educ., 37, 83, 10.3138/jvme.37.1.83 · DOI
  9. Campbell Collaboration, 2001. Guidelines for preparation of review protocols. Available at: <http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/artman2/uploads/1/C2_Protocols_guidelines_v1.pdf> (Accessed: 17th October 2014).
  10. Carlsson, 2007, Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter, Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ., 34, 321, 10.1093/erae/jbm025 · DOI
  11. Carlsson, 2005, Using cheap talk as a test of validity in choice experiments, Econ. Lett., 89, 147, 10.1016/j.econlet.2005.03.010 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Carlsson, 2005, Consumer preferences for food product quality attributes from Swedish agriculture, AMBIO: J. Hum. Environ., 34, 366, 10.1579/0044-7447-34.4.366 · DOI
  13. Chang, 2010, The price of happy hens: A hedonic analysis of retail egg prices, J. Agr. Resour. Econ., 406
  14. Chang, 2015, Antibiotics in agriculture and the risk to human health: how worried should we be?, Evol. Appl., 8, 240, 10.1111/eva.12185 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Cicia, 2010, Willingness to pay for traceable meat attributes: a meta-analysis, Int. J. Food Syst. Dynam., 1, 252, 10.18461/ijfsd.v1i3.138 · DOI
  16. Clark, 2016, A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare, J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 29, 455, 10.1007/s10806-016-9615-x · DOI · Paper page
  17. Clark, 2014, A protocol for a meta-analysis of consumers’ and citizens’ willingness-to-pay for farm animal welfare and disease prevention, PeerJ PrePrints, 2, e675v1
  18. Copay, 2007, Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods, Spine J., 7, 541, 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008 · DOI · Paper page
  19. de Jonge, 2014, Heterogeneity in consumer perceptions of the animal friendliness of broiler production systems, Food Policy, 49, 174, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.008 · DOI
  20. Dickinson, 2002, Meat traceability: Are US consumers willing to pay for it?, J. Agr. Resour. Econ., 348
  21. Doherty, 2014, Demand for safety and regional certification of food Results from Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, Br. Food J., 116, 676, 10.1108/BFJ-10-2011-0266 · DOI
  22. Frewer, 2005, Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems, J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 18, 345, 10.1007/s10806-005-1489-2 · DOI
  23. Glass, 2005, Measuring the value to the public of pig welfare improvements: A contingent valuation approach, Anim. Welfare, 14, 61, 10.1017/S0962728600028931 · DOI
  24. Grimsrud, 2013, Households’ willingness-to-pay for improved fish welfare in breeding programs for farmed Atlantic salmon, Aquaculture, 372, 19, 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.10.009 · DOI
  25. Grunert, 2006, Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption, Meat Sci., 74, 149, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.016 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Harvey, 2013, Reconsidering the political economy of farm animal welfare: an anatomy of market failure, Food Policy, 38, 105, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.006 · DOI
  27. Ingenbleek, 2012, EU animal welfare policy: developing a comprehensive policy framework, Food Policy, 37, 690, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.001 · DOI
  28. Kehlbacher, 2012, Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling, Food Policy, 37, 627, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.002 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Koistinen, 2013, The impact of fat content, production methods and carbon footprint information on consumer preferences for minced meat, Food Qual. Preference, 29, 126, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.03.007 · DOI
  30. Lagerkvist, 2011, A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare, Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ., 38, 55, 10.1093/erae/jbq043 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Lassen, 2006, Happy pigs are dirty!–conflicting perspectives on animal welfare, Livestock Sci., 103, 221, 10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008 · DOI
  32. Leinonen, 2012, Predicting the environmental impacts of chicken systems in the United Kingdom through a life cycle assessment: Broiler production systems, Poultr. Sci., 91, 8, 10.3382/ps.2011-01634 · DOI
  33. Lipsey, 2001, vol. 49
  34. Mann, 2005, Ethological farm programs and the “market” for animal welfare, J. Agric. Environ. Ethics, 18, 369, 10.1007/s10806-005-7049-y · DOI
  35. Mayfield, 2007, Consumption of welfare-friendly food products in Great Britain, Italy and Sweden, and how it may be influenced by consumer attitudes to, and behaviour towards, animal welfare attributes, Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food, 15, 59
  36. McClone, 2001, Farm animal welfare in the context of other society issues: toward sustainable systems, Livestock Prod. Sci., 72, 75, 10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00268-8 · DOI
  37. Meader, 2014, A checklist designed to aid consistency and reproducibility of GRADE assessments: development and pilot validation, Syst. Rev., 3, 1, 10.1186/2046-4053-3-82 · DOI
  38. Napolitano, 2008, Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yoghurt, J. Dairy Sci., 91, 910, 10.3168/jds.2007-0709 · DOI
  39. Norwood, 2013, Animal welfare and food safety, Food Saf. Mag.
  40. Revicki, 2008, Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes, J. Clin. Epidemiol., 61, 102, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Ryan, 2011, Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis of the psychological explanation for contingent values, J. Econ. Psychol., 32, 674, 10.1016/j.joep.2011.07.004 · DOI
  42. Spooner, 2014, Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: a qualitative study, Livestock Sci., 163, 150, 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.02.011 · DOI
  43. Stanley, 2001, Wheat from chaff: meta-analysis as quantitative literature review, J. Econ. Perspect., 15, 131, 10.1257/jep.15.3.131 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Stewart, 2012, Statistical analysis of individual participant data meta-analyses: a comparison of methods and recommendations for practice, PLoS ONE, 7, e46042, 10.1371/journal.pone.0046042 · DOI
  45. Vanhonacker, 2007, Segmentation based on consumers’ perceived importance and attitude toward farm animal welfare, Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food, 15, 91
  46. van Rijswijk, 2008, Consumer perceptions of traceability: a cross-national comparison of the associated benefits, Food Qual. Prefer., 452, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.02.001 · DOI
  47. Verbeke, 2009, Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare, Anim Welf., 18, 325, 10.1017/S0962728600000725 · DOI
  48. Verbeke, 1999, Beliefs, attitudes and behaviour towards fresh meat consumption in Belgium: empirical evidence from a consumer survey, Food Qual. Prefer., 10, 437, 10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00031-2 · DOI · Paper page
  49. Veissier, 2008, European approaches to ensure good animal welfare, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 113, 279, 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.008 · DOI
  50. Wathes, 2013, Livestock production in the UK in the 21st century: a perfect storm averted?, Animals, 3, 574, 10.3390/ani3030574 · DOI
  51. Zingg, 2012, People’s willingness to eat meat from animals vaccinated against epidemics, Food Policy, 37, 226, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.02.001 · DOI

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Clark, B., Stewart, G. B., Panzone, L. A., Kyriazakis, I., & Frewer, L. J.
Venue
Food Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-04
Volume
68
Pages
112-127
ISSN
0306-9192 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006
OpenAlex
W2583392945
Cited by
374
References
9
FWCI
7.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006
The paper
Clark, B., Stewart, G. B., Panzone, L. A., Kyriazakis, I., & Frewer, L. J. (2017). Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies. Food Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.