Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T08:22:55.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Drivers of Resident Support for Animal Care Oriented Ballot Initiatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2015

Glynn T. Tonsor  and
Christopher A. Wolf
Glynn T. Tonsor
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
Christopher A. Wolf
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
Get access

Abstract

Recent high profile incidents and public debates in the United States have highlighted the increasing interest residents have regarding animal rearing and handling practices. This paper examines resident support for national legislation that mirrors Proposition 2, which in November 2008 passed in California. Results suggest perceptions regarding animal welfare information accuracy of livestock industry and consumer groups are particularly influential determinants of voting behavior and demand. The analysis also suggests residents may not fully appreciate price or tax implications when supporting additional animal welfare legislation. Implications for livestock industry and policy makers are provided along with suggestions for additional research.

Keywords

animal handling and welfareballot initiativesinformation accuracy, legislationProposition 2voting behaviorwillingness to payQ18Q13Q11
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , August 2010 , pp. 419 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2010

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

Anderson, J.C., and Gerbing, D.W. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103(1988):411–23.Google Scholar
Boxall, P.C., and Adamowicz, W.L. “Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach.” Environmental and Resource Economics 23(2002):421–46.Google Scholar
California Secretary of State. Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Internet site: http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/electionsj_103008.htm (Accessed November 24, 2009).Google Scholar
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., and Lagerkvist, C.J. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Farm Animal Welfare: Mobile Abattoirs versus Transportation to Slaughter.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 34(2007):321–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J.C., Hanemann, M., and Signorello, G. “One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 84(2002):742–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J.A., Shogren, J.F., Hayes, D.J., and Kliebenstein, J.B. “CVM-X: Calibrating Contingent Values with Experimental Auction Markets.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80(1998):455–65.Google Scholar
Greene, W. Econometric Analysis, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.Google Scholar
Greene, W. NLOGIT Version 4.0 Reference Guide. Econometric Software, Inc., 2008.Google Scholar
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tanham, R.L., and Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1995.Google Scholar
Kimenju, S.C., and Groote, H.D. “Consumer Willingness to Pay for Genetically Modified Food in Kenya.” Agricultural Economics 38(2008):35–46.Google Scholar
Loureiro, M., McCluskey, J.J., and Mittelhammer, R.C. “Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Eco-Labeled Apples?” The Journal of Consumer Affairs 36(2002):203–19.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Hensher, D.A., and Swait, J.D. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Louviere, J.J., Islam, T., Wasi, N., Street, D., and Burgess, L. “Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price.” The Journal of Consumer Research 35(2008):360–75.Google Scholar
Lusk, J.L., and Fox, J.A. “Consumer Demand for Mandatory Labeling of Beef from Cattle Administered Growth Hormones or Fed Genetically Modified Corn.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34(2002):27–38.Google Scholar
Mazzocchi, M., Lobb, A., Traill, W.B., and Cavicchi, A. “Food Scares and Trust: A European Study.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 59(2008):2–24.Google Scholar
Nilsson, T., Foster, K., and Lusk, J.L. “Marketing Opportunities for Certified Pork Chops.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 54(2006):567–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norwood, F.B., and Lusk, J.L. “The Farm Animal Welfare Debate.” Choices (New York, NY.) 24,3(2009):1–6.Google Scholar
Ohio Secretary of State. (2009). Internet site: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/elections/electResultsMain/2009ElectionResults/20091103issue2.aspx (Accessed November 24, 2009).Google Scholar
Pennings, J.M.E. and Garcia, P. “Measuring Producers’ Risk Preferences: A Global Risk Attitude Construct.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2001):993–1009.Google Scholar
The Humane Society of the United States. (2009). Internet site: http://www.hsus.org/horses_equines/horse_slaughter/congress_introduces_new_bill.html (Accessed November 24, 2009).Google Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., and Shupp, R. “Valuations of ‘Sustainably Produced’ Labels on Beef, Tomato, and Apple Products.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38(2009):371–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonsor, G.T., Wolf, C., and Olynk, N. “Consumer Voting and Demand Behavior Regarding Swine Gestation Crates.” Food Policy 34(2009):492–98.Google Scholar
Videras, J. “Religion and Animal Welfare: Evidence from Voting Data.” Journal of Socio-Economics 35,4(2006):652–59.Google Scholar