289 1Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy. 2Ministry of Health, Directorate-General for Hygiene, Food Safety and Nutrition (DGISAN), Rome, Italy. 3Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy. *Corresponding author at: Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Food Safety Section, Strada provinciale per Casamassima km 3, 70010 Valenzano (Bari), Italy. E-mail: roberta.barrasso@uniba.it. Parole chiave Benessere animale, Consumatore, Disponibilità a pagare, Questionario. Riassunto L'interesse dei cittadini europei verso il benessere degli animali risente di diverse variabili: la tipologia di consumatore e il suo paese di appartenenza, ad esempio. Al fine di valutare il benessere degli animali nell’azienda agricola, è essenziale sviluppare parametri oggettivi, ovvero animal-based measures, riguardanti il comportamento, la salute e la fisiologia degli animali. La determinazione di indicatori validi e affidabili di benessere animale rappresenta l’obiettivo chiave di diversi programmi di ricerca. Agli strumenti utilizzati vanno aggiunte, inoltre, indagini rivolte agli agricoltori, a esperti del settore e ai consumatori di carne. L’obiettivo dello studio è stato indagare le abitudini alimentari degli italiani rispetto al consumo di carne e di valutare la loro conoscenza del benessere degli animali correlandola con la disponibilità a pagare un prodotto etichettato animal-friendly. Durante lo studio è stato sottoposto un questionario composto di ventitré domande a risposta chiusa a cinquecento intervistati. I risultati dell’indagine sono stati, quindi, elaborati attraverso analisi statistiche multivariate. La variabile che è risultata in grado di influenzare maggiormente il prezzo di acquisto della carne è il luogo di acquisto, con un’ampia oscillazione tra la Grande Distribuzione Organizzata (G.D.O.) e i piccoli esercizi commerciali che propongono prodotti biologici. Inoltre, si evince che l'interesse verso il tema del benessere degli animali è direttamente correlato alla disponibilità economica e al grado d’istruzione del consumatore. Interesse dei consumatori nei confronti del benessere animale e loro disponibilità a pagare Keywords Animal welfare, Consumer, Questionnaire, Willingness to pay. Summary The interest of European consumers towards animal welfare can be influenced by several variables, both related to the consumers themselves and to the different countries of the EU. In order to assess animal welfare at farm level, it is essential to develop animal-based measures in accordance with the animals’ actual welfare state in terms of their behaviour, health and physiology. The search for valid and reliable indicators is a key objective of several research programs especially for assessing welfare at farm level and the tools may include surveys addressed to farmers. However, there is a need to guarantee financial support for farmers who breed animals in accordance with such welfare conditions, to cover their additional costs. The aim of the study was to investigate the eating habits of Italian consumers regarding meat consumption linked to their knowledge of animal welfare and to their willingness to pay. We investigated consumers’ understanding of animal welfare using a questionnaire (based on a list of twenty-three closed-ended questions) designed for collecting data from large numbers of respondents and multivariate statistical analysis. The data in our study showed that the variable with the greatest influence on purchase price was the place of meat purchase. As regards level of education, it appears that people with a high level of education are more concerned about animal welfare and, consequently, are willing to spend a higher price when buying meat. Consumer attention to the animal-welfare issue is on the rise and, in parallel with this growth, there is also a greater willingness to pay, i.e. a surcharge for the products obtained in the respect of animal welfare. This growth is influenced by the awareness and knowledge of the characteristics of animal welfare. Giancarlo Bozzo1, Roberta Barrasso1*, Claudia Annarita Grimaldi2, Giuseppina Tantillo1 and Rocco Roma3 Consumer attitudes towards animal welfare and their willingness to pay Veterinaria Italiana 2019, 55 (4), 289-297. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1823.9669.2 Accepted: 19.07.2019 | Available on line: 22.10.2019 290 Veterinaria Italiana 2019, 55 (4), 289-297. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1823.9669.2 Animal welfare and willingness to pay Bozzo et al. European Commission, consumers were asked to rate the importance of farm animal protection on a scale from 0 to 10, with their answers averaging 7.8. This shows that the food quality opinion is established, along with the complete nature and safety of the final product, also by the welfare of the animals involved (Blokhuis et  al. 2008, Napolitano et al. 2007). In order to assess animal welfare at farm level, it is essential to develop animal-based measures founded on the animals’ actual welfare state in terms of their behaviour, health and physiology (Blokhuis et  al. 2003). The search for valid and reliable indicators is a key objective of several research programs, especially for assessing welfare at farm level – the tools may include surveys addressed to farmers; in this case, the methodology used to conduct interviews is decisive. Studies conducted by Heise and Theuvsen (Heise and Theuvsen 2015) and Heise and colleagues (Heise et  al. 2015) clearly indicated that different methodological approaches (open-ended and closed-ended questions) can lead to substantial differences in the perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare (FAW) of farmers and veterinarians. A similar pattern might also exist regarding consumers’ definitions and appreciation of animal welfare. Differences in approaches complicate the development of a common assessment framework for animal welfare, that would be unanimously accepted by the various stakeholders. Most scientific concepts defining FAW are actually criticized for not adequately addressing public conceptions of FAW (Fraser 2008, Vanhonacker and Verbeke 2014). The animal welfare concept is characterized by scientific, ethical, economic, cultural and religious dimensions that continue to evolve (Fraser 2009, Green and Mellor 2011). Knowledge about the public’s understanding of FAW should be augmented by encouraging the scientific dialogue between citizens and stakeholders along the food supply chain and by developing animal-welfare programs. Indeed, one of the key goals of new EU-funded projects is to develop a concept that adequately considers society’s definition of animal welfare (Heise and Theuvsen 2017). Previous studies (De Greef et  al. 2006, Lassen et  al. 2006, Marie 2006) showed that consumers strongly associate FAW with outdoor access, adequate space requirements and the ability of animals to engage Introduction Welfare Quality® is an EU-funded project aimed at achieving ‘integration of animal welfare in the food quality chain: from public concern to improved welfare and transparent quality’. Recent European research (European Parliament Committees 2017) has shown considerable and growing interest among European consumers in the intangible characteristics of products, such as environmental protection, social equity and animal welfare (Sassatelli 2006). Indeed, large parts of western societies, where some events (BSE, avian influenza, etc…) have raised awareness of the effects that animal husbandry has on meat safety, believe that animal welfare standards in livestock production need to be improved (De Jonge and Van Trijp 2013, EC 2007). However, considerable variability has been observed between different parts of the world (Kjørstad 2005) and even across the EU (Nocella et  al. 2010), where consumers in northern EU member countries seem to be more concerned with animal welfare problems (Nocella et  al. 2010). German consumers, for example, rate animal-welfare aspects very highly, with 61% feeling that it is important to protect farm animal-welfare. In contrast, only 34% of Polish citizens agree with this statement [European Commission (EC) 2016]. Little is known about the views of consumers from some developing countries, such as Brazil, regarding animal production systems (Clark et al. 2016). State of the art In recent years, the eating habits of the population have changed. Indeed, some people respond to their growing concerns over animal welfare by eating less meat or by becoming vegetarians or even vegans (Vanhonacker et al. 2010). Additionally, the number of consumers who source meat from more animal-friendly production systems has increased constantly (Lusk and Norwood 2012, Schulze et al. 2008). As a result, a number of animal welfare programs have been developed, introducing so-called “animal welfare products” onto the market (Heise and Theuvsen 2017). Furthermore, consumers are requesting not only for safe and quality foods, but also for a certification that animals had been bred and slaughtered ethically (Salamano et  al. 2013). In a 2007 study by the Infine, dallo studio emerge la necessità di garantire un sostegno finanziario agli agricoltori che allevano gli animali in conformità al loro benessere, per coprire i costi aggiuntivi necessari ad assicurare tali condizioni di allevamento. 291Veterinaria Italiana 2019, 55 (4), 289-297. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1823.9669.2 Bozzo et al. Animal welfare and willingness to pay and cross-cultural differences (Nocella et  al. 2010, Lagerkvist and Hess 2011). For instance, a study showed that EU countries such as Germany, France and Great Britain have a higher WTP for animal-welfare attributes than Spanish, Danish and Italian consumers. Accordingly, a higher WTP has been observed for salmon and pigs reared in improved welfare conditions, although the presence of unsuitable products (over-pale salmon from organic farming and boar-tainted pork from uncastrated male pigs) decreased WTP (Lagerkvist et al. 2006, Liljenstolpe 2008, Olesen et al. 2010). Studies based on choice experiments and cost estimates showed that animal-friendly practices may be economically sustained by consumers’ increased WTP; further studies are necessary to verify whether the rise in WTP at least covers the increased costs to farmers. Thus, consumer WTP provided a useful tool to obtain information about the real value that consumers give to animal welfare and they could sustain the implementation of the corresponding animal-friendly practices as assessed by benefit-cost estimates (Carlsson et  al. 2007). However, WTP is often over-estimated because of hypothetical bias and social desirability effects in the answers (Dransfield et al. 2005, Napolitano et al. 2010). In contrast to the large number of studies regarding WTP for animal welfare or sustainability attributes (Verain et  al. 2012), relatively few studies have been conducted segmenting consumers based on their preferences for a broader range of production-related attributes (animal welfare, environmental impact, health and safety) and for more traditional product characteristics (i.e. colour, fat content, country of origin, price). Some studies (Dransfield et  al. 2005, Swanson and Mench 2000) indicated that consumer intent to pay, measured through questionnaires, was higher for products obtained using animal-friendly farming techniques. In particular, people appeared to be prepared to pay an average 5% extra for pork from outdoor-raised pigs, with one-fifth of consumers claiming to be willing to pay 20% extra (Dransfield et  al. 2005). In another study conducted on citizens from the 25 EU member states, the majority of respondents (57%) stated that they were prepared to pay more for eggs from animal welfare-friendly production systems: 25% could accept a 5% increase, 21% declared that an increment of 10% would be acceptable and 11% were prepared to pay 25% extra or more (EC 2005). Similar results were obtained in the USA, where 44% of respondents expressed the intent to pay 5% more for food from animals raised humanely and 20% said they were prepared to pay up to 10% more (Swanson and Mench 2000). The aim of the study was to investigate the eating habits of Italian consumers regarding meat in natural innate behaviour. Other frequently named criteria related to feed and water supply and naturalness of feed. Meuwissen and colleagues (Meuwissen et  al. 2004) found that citizens rated space, medicines and living surface as the most important indicators of the level of animal welfare. Miele and colleagues (Miele et  al. 2011) found that citizens define FAW based on 12 established criteria known as the “welfare quality” approach. In response to this public endorsement, an increasing number of regulations have been issued on the welfare of farm animals during growth (EC 2016), transportation (EC 2005)1 and slaughter (EC 2009)2. Legislation on animal protection (Italian Legislative Decree No. 146)3, although necessary in order to provide a minimum level of welfare to animals, does not guarantee to farmers sufficient revenues to sustain the increased costs, in spite of the subsidies introduced by the regional Rural Development Programme (RDP). Despite this public drive towards increased farm animal welfare standards, many farmers, practitioners and research groups are concerned about the extra costs arising from increased levels of animal welfare. They claim that this may lead to a reduced market competitiveness: for instance, without this increased cost, it has been estimated that farmers’ added value for meat is only 19% (Economic Research Service 2004). The results of the surveys of EU and non-EU operators suggest that the application of AW legislation/standards implies higher production costs for operators, regardless of their geographical position, to achieve and maintain compliance with AW legislation/ standards (European Commission 2017). Conversely, such added value may be offset by raising the price of certified meat. A recent study (Napolitano et al. 2008) on Willingness To Pay (WTP) for yogurt revealed that consumers were influenced by information about low standards of animal welfare and moved their WTP towards their expectations. However, the difference between expectancy and WTP was not totally correlated with FAW, because WTP was also associated with other aspects such as the sensory properties of the products (Napolitano et  al. 2008) and different meat types (i.e. species of origin) (Carlsson et al. 2007). Studies show that WTP tends to be influenced by national policy, the awareness of food scandals 1 European Commission (EC) 2005. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 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. Off J, L 3, 05/01/2005, 1-44. 2 European Commission (EC) 2009. Council Regulation (EC) No. 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on protection of animals at the time of killing. Off J, L 303, 18/11/2009, 1-30. 3 Decreto Legislativo 26 marzo 2001, No. 146 riguardante l’attuazione della direttiva 98/58/CE relativa alla protezione degli animali negli allevamenti. Off J, 95, 24/04/2001. 292 Veterinaria Italiana 2019, 55 (4), 289-297. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1823.9669.2 Animal welfare and willingness to pay Bozzo et al. Table I. An outline of the questions put forward to the respondents. Questions 1) Age <25 14) Are you concerned with animal welfare? Yes 25-40 I am quite interested 40-60 No >60 I never thought about it 2) Gender Male 15) When you buy meat, do you think about how the animals were raised and slaughtered? Yes, most of the time Female Yes, sometime 3) Highest academic qualification Primary school/Middle school No, never High school I don’t know Graduate 16) Which of these animals, according to you, has the worst quality of life? Chickens and laying hens Postgraduate qualification Cattle 4) Place of residence Small town (up to 5.000) Pigs Town (5.000-30.000) Sheep City (more than 30.000). 17) What characteristics should cattle breeding have to ensure animal welfare? Animals are bred in a healthy and natural way 5) Do you eat meat? Yes Animals are free to move around an open area No Animals are free to behave naturally 6) If you answered No to question 5, please state why? Ethical and religious reasons Animals are bred to ensure a good yield Meat is harmful to the human health 18) How do you keep yourself updated on animal welfare? Newspaper and magazines Meat production is unsustainable for the environment Internet 7) How do you consider your meat consumption in the last years? Increased TV shows about animal Unchanged I don’t normally keep updated, but if I find news about it, I pay attention Decreased I am not interested 8) How often do you eat beef? Often 19) What do you think about products made following animal welfare? They are healthier foods Sometimes They are higher quality foods Never They are more profitable for the farmer 9) How often do you eat pork? Often They are more sustainable for the environment Sometimes 20) Are you willing to buy more expensive meat that has been produced following animal welfare measures? Yes, up to 10% more Never Yes, up to 20% more 10) How often do you eat sheep? Often No, I’m not willing to pay more Sometimes I don’t know Never 21) How should the product obtained according to animal welfare be tagged? Informative labels on the pack 11) How often do you eat poultry? Often Rating and scoring system Sometimes A logo on the package Never Realistic picture about the livestock 12) Where do you usually buy meat? Butcher’s 22) In your opinion, who should guarantee animal welfare? Producers and farmers Supermarket Veterinarians Discount store European Commission Other (producer or organic shops) Italian Government 13) When buying, does the meat price influence your choice? Yes, a lot 23) Do you consider the information about livestock and animal slaughter exhaustive on current labels? Yes, information is clear and sufficient Yes, enough No, information is not sufficient No No, information is not fully clear I don’t know I don’t know. 293Veterinaria Italiana 2019, 55 (4), 289-297. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1823.9669.2 Bozzo et al. Animal welfare and willingness to pay variables collected and the WTP. In the multiple regression model, we assume that there is a linear relationship between the dependent variable Y and Xn independent variables. The independent variables are sometimes called both explanatory variables, because they are able to explain the Y statistical variation, and predictor variables, due to the predictive capability of the Y  value (Daniel and Cross 2013). In our study, the dependent variable was the consumer’s Willingness To Pay (WTP), while the independent variables included all information collected from the interviewees. After a frequency analysis and a statistical correlation index of all the data, eight variables were chosen: (i) type of consumer; (ii) concern; (iii) consumer’s qualification; (iv) place of meat purchase4; (v) age; (vi) gender; (vii) residence and (viii) trend of meat consumption in the last years. As regression method, we used the forward type in which the independent variables were entered one at a time according to the probability that they affect the significance of the obtained model. According to the highest level of determination coefficient (R2), the best fitting model was obtained. Results The percentages of respondents who often eat chicken meat and beef were respectively 33.8% and 27.2%, whilst the consumption frequency of pork meat was 21.9% and of sheep meat was only 2.32%. As results of the former regression model, based on the eight variables listed above, R2 was very low due to the high outlier presence that influenced the total variability of the sample. Several statistical methods reduced this effect. We used the Percentage Difference (PD) between the observed value of WTP and the calculated value by the regression model. In the final regression, we used 147 observations in which the PD was higher than -  25% and lower than + 25% so that a high R2 was obtained (Table II). The fitting model chose four of the original variables as significant: (i) type of consumer; (ii) concern; (iii) consumer’s qualification and (iv) place of meat purchase. Conversely, the remaining variables: (i) age; (ii) gender; (iii) residence and (iv) trend of meat consumption in the last years, did not affect the model’s significance. By looking at the fourth box in Table II, it is clear that consumption linked to their knowledge of animal welfare, using Willingness To Pay (WTP) as a proxy of their behaviour. Material and methods Sampling and data collection We investigated consumers’ understanding of animal welfare using a questionnaire designed for collecting data from large numbers of respondents and multivariate statistical analysis. The questionnaire was based on a list of twenty-three closed-ended questions (Table I). Five hundred respondents compiled the questionnaire and data were collected in the months of September and October 2018. The opportunity to fill out the questionnaire both in paper format and in digital version was provided in order to interview more people, and thereby achieve better statistical representativeness. Given the ubiquitous presence of smartphones, a link was created whereby people could also answer the questionnaire from their computers or phones. A total of three hundred respondents used social media and internet links to respond to the questionnaire; conversely, others were interviewed in areas adjacent to supermarket butchers’ counters. The questionnaire was divided into three different parts, according to the nature of the questions: • Socio-economic data: information on social, cultural and economic issues (gender, age, place of residence); this information allowed us to segment the sample and to study different meat consumption behaviours. • Meat consumption habits: characteristics of spending habits (frequency and place of purchase, quality, price ratio), regarding meat consumption. • Animal welfare interest: knowledge and awareness of respondents about animal welfare, ranging from a description of animal welfare, its importance and how clearly they were able to interpret labelling information to recognize that a given food had been produced respecting animal welfare. Questions about the WTP surcharge for meat products compliant with animal welfare criteria were asked at the end of the questionnaire. Statistical analysis A multiple linear regression analysis was carried out to predict the WTP for the sample and to assess specific forms of relationship between 4 The significance of the four variables used in the analysis is as follows: the variable ‘type of consumer’ was related to the frequency of meat consumption; ‘concern’ indicated consumer sensitivity to various aspects of animal welfare; ‘consumer’s qualification’ regarded the educational level (primary school, middle school, high school, degree or post- degree); ‘place of meat purchase’ was butcher’s, supermarket, discount store, producer or organic shops. 294 Veterinaria Italiana 2019, 55 (4), 289-297. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1823.9669.2 Animal welfare and willingness to pay Bozzo et al. purchase. Indeed, from our results, it emerged that if the meat is bought in a supermarket or in a discount store, the consumer has a lower WTP; on the other hand, if the meat is bought in a butcher’s, from the producer or in an organic shop, consumers raise their WTP. This difference could be explained by the several kinds of customer in retail settings whose purchases are strictly linked to quality-price ratio. As regards the second variable, it is clear that the greater the consumers' interest in animal welfare, the higher their WTP. Conversely, frequency of meat purchases negatively affected WTP. Finally, as regards level of education, it appears that people with a high level of education are more concerned about animal welfare and, consequently, are willing to spend a higher price when buying meat. The data in our study showed that educational background influences experts’ views on certain animal-welfare aspects. These results are in agreement with those from other studies (Nøhr et al. 2016, Bracke et al. 2008) investigating the influence of expert education and current profession in regards to their opinion on the validity of welfare measures. Moreover, results involving 196 European experts showed that current profession was more pivotal than educational background in their approach to welfare measures and criteria. However, Rodenburg and colleagues (Rodenburg et  al. 2008) showed that welfare scientists including ethologists and veterinarians presumably are better qualified than lay people to make judgements on the overall animal-welfare state whenever the welfare judgement is to be based on a complex dataset on various welfare indicators. According to a previous study conducted by the the place of meat purchase was the most significant variable. The second variable that may influence the consumer’s WTP was concern, the third variable was the type of consumer while the fourth was the level of education. The linear equation obtained (Table III) was as follows: WTP = ‑2.9 (constant) + 3.6 (place of purchase) + 1.3 (concern) ‑ 1.4 (type of consumer) + 1.9 (qualification) Discussion The limit of our study is represented by the part of the population which answered the questionnaire (Table IV). As in previous studies (Carlucci et  al. 2009, Grunert and Valli 2001), we considered mainly younger subjects with a higher level of education. Indeed, since the questionnaire was also disseminated via internet, the people who responded were mainly young people and students, as they were the most frequent social media users at the time. Table III showed that the variable with the greatest influence on purchase price was place of meat Table III. Coefficients. Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t P B Standard Deviation (SD) Beta 1) (Constant) 5.652 0.697 8.107 0.000 Place of meat purchase 5.014 0.379 0.738 13.218 0.000 2) (Constant) -0.521 0.828 -0.629 0.531 Place of meat purchase 3.733 0.322 0.550 11.595 0.000 Concern 1.399 0.142 0.467 9.854 0.000 3) (Constant) 2.831 0.791 3.577 0.000 Place of meat purchase 3.606 0.266 0.531 13.573 0.000 Concern 1.309 0.117 0.437 11.147 0.000 Type of consumer -1.346 0.161 -0.301 -8.348 0.000 4) (Constant) -2.944 0.971 -3.033 0.003 Place of meat purchase 3.590 0.221 0.529 16.261 0.000 Concern 1.275 0.098 0.420 12.858 0.000 Type of consumer -1.426 0.134 -0.319 -10.614 0.000 Consumer’s qualifications 1.858 0.230 0.241 8.093 0.000 Table II. The sample coefficient of determination. Model R R-squared Adjusted R-squared Standard Deviation (SD) 1 0.738 0.545 0.542 3.344 2 0.853 0.727 0.724 2.597 3 0.903 0.816 0.812 2.139 4 0.935 0.874 0.870 1.778 295Veterinaria Italiana 2019, 55 (4), 289-297. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1823.9669.2 Bozzo et al. Animal welfare and willingness to pay animal-welfare understanding with regard to many socio-demographic variables. Gender, age, place of residence and children significantly influenced the perceived importance of the 12 animal-welfare criteria, while education level had no significant effect on consumers’ animal welfare definitions (Tuyttens et  al. 2010). Conversely, in our study, the consumer’s place of residence was excluded among the variables able to influence consumer WTP. The results of our study showed that only 7.9% of the respondents were unwilling to pay extra costs for products obtained in respect of animal welfare; 33.7% said they were willing to pay up to 10% more and as many as 58.4% of the persons interviewed claimed to be prepared to meet an increase of up to 20% more than normal (Figure 1). Conclusions Using social media for public investigation appears to be a rapid and effective method to reach people and explain the nature and aims of the survey; moreover, this method saves time for collecting and inputting data. The statistical procedure we used is very common in marketing and consumer studies and its results have also been used for commercial purposes. As regards our results, it is clear that consumer attention to the animal-welfare issue is on the rise and, in parallel with this growth, there is also a greater WTP, i.e. a surcharge for the products obtained in the respect of animal welfare. This growth is influenced by the awareness and knowledge of the characteristics of animal welfare. For this purpose, more efforts should be made to clarify to consumers what are exactly the animal-welfare criteria, chiefly by public bodies, to raise awareness among citizens. Interestingly, in our study the level of income clearly affected consumer WTP. This was particularly evident between customers of supermarkets and of discount stores. It is also clear that the farmers who breed animals in Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD 1999), a strong influencing factor on the knowledge of, and interest in, food production is where the consumer lives, in particular whether they are of rural or urban origin (Table I). Tuyttens and colleagues (Tuyttens et  al. 2010) also showed significant differences in 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 No extra costs 7.9% 33.7% 58.4% Up to 10% more Up to 20% more % Figure 1. Consumer willingness to pay. Table IV. Characteristics of the consumers interviewed. Questions Answers (%) 1) Age <25 13.5 25-40 47.0 40-60 31.4 >60 8.0 2) Gender Male 36.5 Female 63.5 3) Highest academic qualification Primary school/Middle school 1.1 High school 9.7 Graduate 41.8 Postgraduate qualification 47.5 4) Place of residence Small town (up to 5.000) 18.1 Town (5.000-30.000) 27.6 City (more than 30.000). 54.2 5) Do you eat meat? Yes 96.0 No 4.0 6) If you answered No to question 5, please state why? Ethical and religious reasons 60.9 Meat is harmful to the human health 21.7 Meat production is unsustainable for the environment 17.4 7) How do you consider your meat consumption in the last years? Increased 7.8 Unchanged 48.9 Decreased 42.6 8) Where do you usually buy meat? Butcher’s 39.2 Supermarket 47.9 Discount store 1.5 Other (producer or organic shops) 8.9 9) How do you keep yourself updated on animal welfare? Newspaper and magazines 16.0 Internet 17.3 TV shows about animal 12.0 I don’t normally keep updated, but if I find news about it, I pay attention 45.6 I am not interested 8.6 10) Are you concerned with animal welfare? Yes 69.8 I am quite interested 19 No 1.3 I never thought about it 9.3 296 Veterinaria Italiana 2019, 55 (4), 289-297. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1823.9669.2 Animal welfare and willingness to pay Bozzo et al. products of animal origin subject to stringent welfare criteria with the label “animal welfare” on their packaging; ii) an institutional subsidies system for farmers who choose animal welfare would help achieving a good quality/price ratio, increasing the supply of animal-welfare certified products and, conversely, lowering their market price. Institutional subsidies are essential to cover the farmer expenses required to obtain the necessary certifications. accordance with the appropriate welfare conditions, deserve financial support to cover the additional costs. To achieve this, two actions in particular are required: i) a more comprehensive and simplified certification system could increase consumer awareness on topics such as sustainability, food safety, human health and animal life quality and could help avoiding non-compliant claims. For instance, some European countries (France, Denmark) in large-scale retail have launched Blokhuis H.J., Jones R.B., Geers R., Miele M. & Veissier I. 2003. Measuring and monitoring animal welfare: transparency in the food product quality chain. Anim Welfare, 12, 445-455. Blokhuis H.J., Keeling L.J. Gavinelli A. & Serratosa J. 2008. Animal welfare’s impact on the food chain. Trends Food Sci Technol, 19, S75-S83. Bracke M.B.M., Edwards S., Engel B., Guist W.G. & Algers B. 2008. Expert opinion as ‘validation’ of risk assessment applied to calf welfare. Acta Vet Scand, 50 (1), 29. Carlsson F., Frykblom P. & Lagerkvist C.J. 2007. Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. Eur Rev Agric Econ, 34 (3), 321-344. Carlucci A., Monteleone E., Braghieri A. & Napolitano F. 2009. Mapping the effect of information about animal welfare on consumer liking and willingness to pay for yogurt. J Sens Stud, 24, 712-730. Clark B., Stewart G.B., Panzone L.A., Kyriazakis I. & Frewer L.J. 2016. A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. J Agric Environ Ethics, 29, 455-478. De Greef K., Stafleu F. & De Lauwere C. 2006. A simple value-distinction approach aids transparency in farm animal welfare debates. J Agric Environ Ethics, 19, 57-66. De Jonge J. & Van Trijp H.C.M. 2013. Meeting heterogeneity in consumer demand for animal welfare: a reflection of existing knowledge and implication for the meat sector. J Agric EnvironEthics, 26, 629-661. Dransfield E., Ngapo T.M., Nielsen N.A., Bredahl L., Sjödén P.O. Magnusson M., Campo M.M. & Nute G.R. 2005. Consumer choice and suggested price for pork as influenced by its appearance, taste and information concerning country of origin and organic pig production. Meat Sci, 69, 61-70. Economic Research Service (ERS). 2004. Calculating the food marketing bill. Amber Waves, February. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service. European Commission (EC). 2005. Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special References Eurobarometer 229, Wave 63.2.TNS Opinion and Social. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/ archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdf. European Commission (EC). 2007. Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270. https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/ archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf. European Commission (EC). 2016. Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer442. http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/PublicOpinion/ index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/71348. European Commission 2017. Study on the impact of animal welfare international activities. https:// ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/animals/docs/aw_ platform_20180621_pre-08.pdf. European Parliament Committees 2017. Animal Welfare in the European Union. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ supporting-analyses. Fraser D. 2008. Understanding animal welfare. Acta Vet Scand, 50 (Suppl. 1), 1-7. Fraser D. 2009. Assessing animal welfare: different philosophies, different scientific approaches. Zoo Biol, 28, 507-518. Green T.C. & Mellor D.J. 2011. Extending ideas about animal welfare assessment to include ‘quality of life’ and related concepts. N Z Vet J, 59 (6), 263-271. Grunert K.G. & Valli C. 2001. Designer-made meat and dairy products: consumer-led product development. Livest Prod Sci, 72, 83-98. Heise H., Kemper N. & Theuvsen L. 2015. Veterinarians understanding of farm animal welfare: results of an empirical study (Was verstehen Tierärzte unter Tierwohl? Ergebnisse einer empirischen Erhebung). Tierärztl Umschau, 70, 299-304. Heise H. & Theuvsen L. 2015. Biological functioning, natural living or welfare quality: investigations of farmers’ understanding of farm animal welfare (Biological functioning, natural living oder welfare quality: Untersuchungen zum Tierwohlverständnis deutscher Landwirte). Ber Landwirtsch, 93, 1-19. Heise H. & Theuvsen L. 2017. Citizens’ understanding of 297Veterinaria Italiana 2019, 55 (4), 289-297. doi: 10.12834/VetIt.1823.9669.2 Bozzo et al. Animal welfare and willingness to pay Nøhr R., Lund T.B., Forkman B. & Sandøe P. 2016. How do different kinds of animal experts view and weigh animal welfare indicators? IFRO Report, No. 244; Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen: København, Denmark. Olesen I., Alfnes F., Røra M.B. & Kolstad K. 2010. Eliciting consumers’ willingness to pay for organic and welfare-labelled salmon in a non-hypothetical choice experiment. Livest Sci, 127, 218-226. Rodenburg T.B., Tuyttens F.A.M., de Reu K., Herman L., Zoons J. & Sonck B. 2008. Welfare assessment of laying hens in furnished cages and non-cage systems: assimilating expert opinion. Anim Welfare, 17, 355-361. Salamano G., Cuccurese A., Poeta A., Santella E., Sechi P., Cambiotti V. & Cenci Goga B.T. 2013. Acceptability of electrical stunning and post-cut stunning among Muslim communities: a possible dialogue. Soc Anim, 21 (5), 443-458. Sassatelli R. 2006. Virtue, responsibility and consumer choice: framing critical consumeris. In Consuming cultures, global perspectives (J. Brewer and F. Trentmann, eds) Berg, Oxford, 219-278. Schulze B., Spiller A. & Lemke D. 2008. Lucky pig or poor sow? Consumers attitudes towards modern livestock production (Glücksschwein oder arme Sau? Die Einstellung der Verbraucher zur modernen Nutztierhaltung). In Zukunftsperspektiven der Fleischwirtschaft (Spiller A. & B. Schulze, eds), Verbraucher, Märkte, Geschäftsbeziehungen Goettingen, Germany, University Publishing, 465-488. Swanson J.C. & Mench J.A. 2000. Animal welfare: consumer viewpoints. http://animal science.ucdavis.edu/Avian/ swanson.pdf. Tuyttens F.A.M., Vanhonacker F., Van Poucke E. & Verbeke W. 2010. Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the welfare quality operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livest Sci, 131, 108-114. Vanhonacker F., Van Poucke E., Tuyttens F. & Verbeke W. 2010. Citizens’ view on farm animal welfare and related information provision: exploratory insights from Flanders, Belgium. J Agr Environ Ethic, 23, 551-569. Vanhonacker F. & Verbeke W. 2014. Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: challenges and opportunities. J Agr Environ Ethic, 27, 153-171. Verain M.C., Bartels J., Dagevos H., Sijtsema S.J., Onwezen M.C. & Antonides G. 2012. Segments of sustainable food consumers: a literature review. Int J Consum Stud, 36, 123-132. welfare of animals on the farm: an empirical study. J Appl Anim Welf Sci, 21 (2), 153-169. Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD) 1999. The changing consumer. Institute of Grocery Distribution, Watford. Kjørstad I. 2005. Consumer concerns for food animal welfare. In Farm animal welfare concerns - Welfare quality® reports (Roex J. & M. Miele, eds), No. 1, 3-80. Uppsala, SLU Service/Reproenheten. Lagerkvist C.J., Carlsson F. & Viske D. 2006. Swedish consumer preferences for animal welfare and biotech: a choice experiment. J Agrobio Manage Econ, 9 (1), 51-58. Lagerkvist C.J. & Hess S. 2011. A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. Eur Rev Agric Econ, 38, 55-78. Lassen J., Sandoe P. & Forkman B. 2006. Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livest Sci, 103, 221-230. Liljenstolpe C. 2008. Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness, 24 (1), 67-84. Lusk J.L. & Norwood F.B. 2012. Speciesism, altruism and the economics of animal welfare. Eur Rev Agric Econ, 39 (2), 189-212. Marie M. 2006. Ethics: the new challenge for animal agriculture. Livest Sci, 103, 203-207. Meuwissen M.P.M., Van der Lans I.A. & Huirne R.B.M. 2004. A synthesis of consumer behaviour and chain design. In Dynamics in chains and networks, Sixth International Conference on Chain and Network Management in Agribusiness and the Food Industry. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Ede, The Netherlands, 310-317. Miele M., Veissier I., Evans A. & Botreau R. 2011. Animal welfare: establishing a dialogue between science and society. Anim Welfare, 20, 103-117. Napolitano F., De Rosa G., Caporale G., Carlucci A., Grasso F. & Monteleone E. 2007. Bridging consumer perception and on-farm assessment of animal welfare. Anim Welfare, 16, 249-253. Napolitano F., Pacelli C., Girolami A. & Braghieri A. 2008. Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. J Dairy Sci, 91, 910-917. Napolitano F., Braghieri A., Piasentier E., Favotto S., Naspetti S. & Zanoli R. 2010. Effect of information about organic production on beef liking and consumer willingness to pay. Food Quality Prefer, 21, 207-212. Nocella G., Hubbard L. & Scarpa R. 2010. Farm animal welfare, consumer willingness to pay, and trust: results of a cross-national survey. Appl Econ Perspect P, 32, 275-297.