IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi11/115359.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer Willingness-To-Pay For Farm Animal Welfare In Germany - The Case Of Broiler

Author

Listed:
  • Makdisi, Fadi
  • Marggraf, Rainer

Abstract

Estimating the value consumers place on farm animal welfare (FAW) can predict the extent to which consumers are ready to support policy changes aimed at improving the welfare of farm animals and developing animal-friendly production systems that can also compete on markets. This study aimed at exploring consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for broiler meat in Germany which is certified as having been produced under a system that caters for FAW. In addition, logistic and linear regression models were estimated to examine the factors affecting consumers’ decision to buy certified FAW products. The data was obtained from a survey of 300 German broiler consumers, which was designed using the contingent valuation methodology. The results showed that 82% of the respondents were ready to buy certified FAW products. A majority of these (95%) were willing to pay an extra sum of about €1.5 for 1 kg of the certified FAW broiler fillets. This represents a price increase of about 27% in comparison with the actual price of conventional broiler fillets. The WTP estimates reveal that there is a potential for improvement of FAW standards in conventional broiler production. The magnitude of these estimates, however, shows that consumer WTP is below the actual price premium demanded by producers for existing animal-friendly programs for broiler production. This explains why the market for certified FAW broilers fails and calls for a policy change towards higher minimum standards of broiler welfare. Ziel dieser Studie ist es, Erkenntnisse über die Präferenzen der deutschen Verbraucher für das Wohlergehen von Nutztieren (farm animal welfare FAW) zu gewinnen. Erforscht wurde die Zahlungsbereitschaft für Hähnchenfleisch, welches FAW zertifiziert produziert wird. Außerdem wurden logistische und lineare Regressionsmodelle geschätzt, um die Faktoren zu bestimmen, welche die Verbraucher bei ihrer Kaufentscheidung für FAW zertifizierte Produkte beeinflussen. Die Daten wurden durch eine Umfrage bei 300 deutschen Hähnchenfleischverbrauchern ermittelt, wobei die kontingente Bewertungsmethode verwendet wurde. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, daß 82 % der Befragten bereit waren, FAW zertifizierte Produkte zu kaufen. Von diesen war die überwiegende Mehrheit (95 %) bereit, einen zusätzlichen Betrag von ca. 1,50 € pro kg für FAW zertifizierte Hähnchenfilets zu zahlen. Dies stellt einen Preisanstieg von ca. 27 % dar im Vergleich zu dem aktuellen Preis für konventionell produzierte Hähnchenfilets. Die zusätzliche Zahlungsbereitschaft der Verbraucher liegt jedoch unterhalb der aktuellen Preisprämie, die die Hersteller bestehender FAW-Programme in der Hähnchenproduktion verlangen. Dies erklärt, warum der Markt für zertifiziertes FAW-Geflügelfleisch nicht erfolgreich ist.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi11:115359
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.115359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/115359/files/Makdisi_Marggraf.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.115359?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. 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.
    2. Bennett, Richard M. & Blaney, Ralph J. P., 2003. "Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 85-98, July.
    3. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    4. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    5. Rolfe, John, 1999. "Ethical Rules and the Demand for Free Range Eggs," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 187-206, September.
    6. Richard Bennett & Douglas Larson, 1996. "Contingent Valuation Of The Perceived Benefits Of Farm Animal Welfare Legislation: An Exploratory Survey," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1‐4), pages 224-235, January.
    7. Giuseppe Nocella & Lionel Hubbard & Riccardo Scarpa, 2007. "Consumer trust and willingness to pay for certified animal-friendly products," Working Papers in Economics 07/09, University of Waikato.
    8. Theuvsen, Ludwig & Essmann, Sandra & Brand-Sassen, Henning, 2005. "Livestock Husbandry between Ethics and Economics: Finding a Feasible Way Out by Target Costing?," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24598, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Andrés Charry & Manuel Narjes & Karen Enciso & Michael Peters & Stefan Burkart, 2019. "Sustainable intensification of beef production in Colombia—Chances for product differentiation and price premiums," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-18, December.
    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. 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.
    6. Georgia Papoutsi & Pantelis Noulas & Katerina Tsatoura, 2022. "Animals or Humans: What Do Greek Consumers Care More about When Buying Feta Cheese?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Boyle, Glenn, 2008. "The Dog That Doesn't Bark: Animal Interests in Economics," Working Paper Series 4017, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    4. Catherine L. Kling & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Jinhua Zhao, 2012. "From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    5. Lombardini, Chiara & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Kulmala, Soile & Lindroos, Marko, 2011. "Is there a Finnish Animal Welfare Kuznets Curve?," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114379, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Ndebele, Tom & Forgie, Vicky, 2017. "Estimating the economic benefits of a wetland restoration programme in New Zealand: A contingent valuation approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 75-89.
    7. 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.
    8. Lehrer, David & Becker, Nir & Bar, Pua, 2010. "The economic impact of the invasion of Acacia saligna in Israel," MPRA Paper 33954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    10. 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.
    11. Goddard, Ellen W. & Boxall, Peter C. & Emunu, John Paul & Boyd, Curtis & Asselin, Andre & Neall, Amanda, 2007. "Consumer Attitudes, Willingness to Pay and Revealed Preferences for Different Egg Production Attributes: Analysis of Canadian Egg Consumers," Project Report Series 52087, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    12. Kitessa, R.J., 2018. "On the design and implementation of environmental conservation mechanisms : Evidence from field experiments," Other publications TiSEM cda8497d-6dcf-4092-b815-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger, 2005. "Measuring terrorism," Chapters, in: Alain Marciano & Jean-Michel Josselin (ed.), Law and the State, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Bruno S. Frey & Simon Luechinger & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "Valuing Public Goods: The Life Satisfaction Approach," IEW - Working Papers 184, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    15. Richard C. Bishop & Kevin J. Boyle, 2019. "Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 559-582, February.
    16. Farrow Scott & Larson Douglas M., 2012. "News and Social Cost: The Case of Oil Spills and Distant Viewers," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(4), pages 1-24, December.
    17. Chilton, Susan M. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George, 2006. "The relative value of farm animal welfare," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 353-363, September.
    18. Kitessa, Rahel Jigi, 2018. "On the Valuation of the Causes and Consequences of Environmental Damages : Evidence from a Field Experiment (revision of CentER DP 2017-029)," Other publications TiSEM 3d1f1a62-d62a-44d3-8c8a-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Carolina Liljenstolpe, 2008. "Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: an application to Swedish pig production," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 67-84.
    20. Lu, Yiqing & Cranfield, John & Widowski, Tina, 2013. "Consumer Preference for Eggs from Enhanced Animal Welfare Production System: A Stated Choice Analysis," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150276, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agribusiness;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gewi11:115359. 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/gewisea.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.