IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ifaamr/264231.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What do consumers think about farm animal welfare in modern agriculture? Attitudes and shopping behaviour

Author

Listed:
  • Heise, Heinke
  • Theuvsen, Ludwig

Abstract

Several food crises damaged the image of the agricultural sector and consumers have lost trust, especially in animal production practices. Large parts of society believe that animal welfare standards in livestock production need to be improved. As a result, numerous animal welfare products have emerged on the market. This consumer paper identifies five clusters and, thus, strategic groups for the purchase of animal welfare products within the large group of consumers that differ significantly in their attitudes towards modern agriculture, their perception of animal welfare, their social acceptance of meat consumption and their shopping behaviour. Even personal differences are found between the clusters. Based on the results, we derived specific marketing implications for each cluster. These implications can help to develop a more differentiated market segment for animal welfare products in terms of animal welfare level and required price premium, enabling consumers to make product choices according to their preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Heise, Heinke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "What do consumers think about farm animal welfare in modern agriculture? Attitudes and shopping behaviour," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 20(3), November.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:264231
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.264231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/264231/files/ifamr2016.0115.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/264231/files/ifamr2016.0115.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.264231?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Busch, Gesa & Schwetje, Carolin & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Bewertung der Tiergerechtheit in der intensiven Hähnchenmast durch Bürger anhand von Bildern: ein Survey-Experiment," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(03), September.
    2. Boehm, Justus & Kayser, Maike & Spiller, Achim, 2010. "Two Sides of the Same Coin? Analysis of the Web-Based Social Media with Regard to the Image of the Agri-Food Sector in Germany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 1(3), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2010. "Farm Animal Welfare, Consumer Willingness to Pay, and Trust: Results of a Cross-National Survey," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 32(2), pages 275-297.
    4. Golan, Elise H. & Kuchler, Fred & Mitchell, Lorraine, 2000. "Economics Of Food Labeling," Agricultural Economic Reports 34069, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Ulrich Enneking, 2004. "Willingness-to-pay for safety improvements in the German meat sector: the case of the Q&S label," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 31(2), pages 205-223, June.
    6. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & van der Lans, Ivo A.C.M., 2004. "Trade-offs Between Consumer Concerns: An Application for Pork Production," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24996, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Bennett, Richard & Blaney, Ralph, 2002. "Social consensus, moral intensity and willingness to pay to address a farm animal welfare issue," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 501-520, August.
    9. Jayson L. Lusk & F. Bailey Norwood, 2012. "Speciesism, altruism and the economics of animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 39(2), pages 189-212, April.
    10. Kehlbacher, A. & Bennett, R. & Balcombe, K., 2012. "Measuring the consumer benefits of improving farm animal welfare to inform welfare labelling," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 627-633.
    11. Blandford, David & Fulponi, Linda, 1999. "Emerging Public Concerns in Agriculture: Domestic Policies and International Trade Commitments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 26(3), pages 409-424, August.
    12. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    13. Klaus G. Grunert, 2005. "Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 369-391, September.
    14. Diamantopoulos, Adamantios & Schlegelmilch, Bodo B. & Sinkovics, Rudolf R. & Bohlen, Greg M., 2003. "Can socio-demographics still play a role in profiling green consumers? A review of the evidence and an empirical investigation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 465-480, June.
    15. Makdisi, Fadi & Marggraf, Rainer, 2011. "Consumer Willingness-To-Pay For Farm Animal Welfare In Germany - The Case Of Broiler," 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 115359, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mendez, Samara & Peacock, Jacob & Butner, Matt, 2020. "Impact of Corporate Commitments to Source Cage-Free Eggs on Layer Hen Housing," OSF Preprints hkrsm, Center for Open Science.
    2. Jeanette Klink-Lehmann & Nina Langen & Johannes Simons & Monika Hartmann, 2022. "Jumping on the Bandwagon of Responsibility—Or Not? Consumers’ Perceived Role in the Meat Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-21, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Von Hardenberg, Louisa & Heise, Heinke, 2018. "German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes Towards Farm Animal Welfare And Their Willingness To Participate In Animal Welfare Programs: An Empirical Study," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276867, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. von Hardenberg, Louisa & Heise, Heinke, 2018. "German Pig Farmers’ Attitudes towards Animal Welfare Programs and their Willingness to Participate in these Programs: An Empirical Study," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(3), June.
    4. Uehleke, Reinhard & Hüttel, Silke, 2016. "The Hypothetical Free-Rider Deficit In The Demand For Farm Animal Welfare Labeled Meat," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244866, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    5. Yang, Yu-Chen, 2018. "Factors affecting consumers’ willingness to pay for animal welfare eggs in Taiwan," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 21(6), July.
    6. Brenna Ellison & Kathleen Brooks & Taro Mieno, 2017. "Which livestock production claims matter most to consumers?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(4), pages 819-831, December.
    7. Patterson, Jacinta & Mugera, Amin & Burton, Michael, 2015. "Consumer Preferences for Welfare Friendly Production Methods: The Case of Chicken Production in Western Australia," 2015 Conference (59th), February 10-13, 2015, Rotorua, New Zealand 202567, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Schreiner, J.A., 2018. "Assessing consumer and producer preferences for animal welfare using a common elicitation format," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277467, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Boronyak-Vasco, Louise & Perry, Neil, 2015. "Using tradeable permits to improve efficiency, equity and animal protection in the commercial kangaroo harvest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 159-167.
    10. Yang, W. & Renwich, A., 2018. "Consumer Willingness to Pay Price Premium for Credence Attributes of Livestock Products A Meta-Analysis method," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277320, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Pirsich, Wiebke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2017. "The Pet Food Industry: An Innovative Distribution Channel for Animal Welfare Meat?," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276914, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    12. Cao, Ying (Jessica) & Cranfield, John & Chen, Chen & Widowski, Tina, 2021. "Heterogeneous informational and attitudinal impacts on consumer preferences for eggs from welfare enhanced cage systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    13. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    14. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    15. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    16. Heise, Heinke & Gieseke, Daniel, 2018. "Gesagt, Getan? Zusammenhang Zwischen Einstellung Und Persönlichen Merkmalen Der Landwirte Und Dem Tierwohl-Niveau Auf Milchviehbetrieben," 58th Annual Conference, Kiel, Germany, September 12-14, 2018 275897, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    17. Volker Lingnau & Florian Fuchs & Florian Beham, 2022. "The link between corporate sustainability and willingness to invest: new evidence from the field of ethical investments," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 335-369, September.
    18. Naald, Brian Vander & Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2011. "Willingness to pay for other species' well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1325-1335, May.
    19. Fabrice Larceneux & Florence Benoît-Moreau & Valérie Renaudin, 2012. "Why Might Organic Labels Fail to Influence Consumer Choices? Marginal Labelling and Brand Equity Effects," Post-Print hal-00656485, HAL.
    20. Gauly, Sarah & Müller, Andreas & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "New methods of increasing transparency: Does viewing webcam pictures change peoples' opinions towards modern pig farming?," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260769, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ifaamr:264231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifamaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.