IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i5p2440-d504869.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Wants Chicken? Uncovering Consumer Preferences for Produce of Alternative Chicken Product Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Cynthia I. Escobedo del Bosque

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Goettingen, 37073 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Achim Spiller

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Goettingen, 37073 Goettingen, Germany)

  • Antje Risius

    (Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Goettingen, 37073 Goettingen, Germany)

Abstract

As ethical and environmental concerns regarding current poultry production systems arise, consumers look for alternatives. This study assesses consumers’ preferences for chicken meat of dual-purpose breeds (DPBs), regionally produced feedstuff, and specific breeds, along with attitudes and social norms that explain these preferences. We conducted an online survey ( n = 934) including a discrete choice experiment and elements of the theory of planned behavior. Results show that after price, product and feedstuff origin are preferred by consumers, followed by breeding form and specific breed. Utilities for each attribute and level were calculated and consumer segments were created using latent class analysis. Three different consumer groups were identified: (1) price-sensitive consumers, (2) price-sensitive and origin-oriented consumers, and (3) origin-oriented consumers. We conclude that although consumers are interested in meat from DPBs, this attribute alone is not enough to influence the purchase decision, and geographical origin seems to be of crucial importance. However, by highlighting important attributes (i.e., animal welfare, regional/local production), DPB products could be introduced to the market. The consumption of these alternative products has economic implications, such as not relying on imports and promoting local production/consumption, along with social implications as refraining from killing day-old chicks.

Suggested Citation

  • Cynthia I. Escobedo del Bosque & Achim Spiller & Antje Risius, 2021. "Who Wants Chicken? Uncovering Consumer Preferences for Produce of Alternative Chicken Product Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-21, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2440-:d:504869
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2440/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2440/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. Brunso, Karen & Scholderer, Joachim & Grunert, Klaus G., 2004. "Closing the gap between values and behavior--a means-end theory of lifestyle," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 665-670, June.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    5. Rahbauer, S. & Staudigel, M. & Roosen, J., 2018. "Investigating German meat demand for consumer groups with different attitudes and sociodemographic characteristics," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277058, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Han, Heesup, 2015. "Travelers' pro-environmental behavior in a green lodging context: Converging value-belief-norm theory and the theory of planned behavior," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 164-177.
    7. Apostolidis, Chrysostomos & McLeay, Fraser, 2016. "Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 74-89.
    8. Grunert, Klaus G. & Hieke, Sophie & Wills, Josephine, 2014. "Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 177-189.
    9. Loureiro, Maria L. & Umberger, Wendy J., 2007. "A choice experiment model for beef: What US consumer responses tell us about relative preferences for food safety, country-of-origin labeling and traceability," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 496-514, August.
    10. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    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. Oliver Meixner & Petra Riefler & Karin Schanes, 2021. "Sustainable Consumer Behavior and Food Marketing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-4, November.
    2. Honorata Sierocka & Maciej Zajkowski & Grzegorz Hołdyński & Zbigniew Sołjan, 2023. "Characteristics of Electricity Consumption on the Example of Poultry Farming in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Nikola Puvača & Vincenzo Tufarelli & Ilias Giannenas, 2022. "Essential Oils in Broiler Chicken Production, Immunity and Meat Quality: Review of Thymus vulgaris , Origanum vulgare , and Rosmarinus officinalis," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, June.

    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. Baldi, Lucia & Trentinaglia, Maria Teresa & Mancuso, Teresina & Peri, Massimo, 2021. "Attitude Toward Environmental Protection and Toward Nature: How Do They Shape Consumer Behaviour for a Sustainable Tomato?," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315181, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Cordula Hinkes & Inken Christoph-Schulz, 2020. "No Palm Oil or Certified Sustainable Palm Oil? Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences and the Role of Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-26, September.
    5. Bronnmann, Julia & Asche, Frank, 2017. "Sustainable Seafood From Aquaculture and Wild Fisheries: Insights From a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 113-119.
    6. Rebecca C. A. Tobi & Francesca Harris & Ritu Rana & Kerry A. Brown & Matthew Quaife & Rosemary Green, 2019. "Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    7. Apostolidis, Chrysostomos & McLeay, Fraser, 2016. "Should we stop meating like this? Reducing meat consumption through substitution," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 74-89.
    8. Ricci, Elena Claire & Banterle, Alessandro, 2020. "Do major climate change-related public events have an impact on consumer choices?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    9. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    10. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    11. Stefano Ceolotto & Eleanor Denny, 2021. "Putting a new 'spin' on energy labels: measuring the impact of reframing energy efficiency on tumble dryer choices in a multi-country experiment," Trinity Economics Papers tep1521, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
    12. 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.
    13. Wei Zheng & Hongliang Qiu & Alastair M. Morrison & Wei Wei & Xihua Zhang, 2022. "Landscape and Unique Fascination: A Dual-Case Study on the Antecedents of Tourist Pro-Environmental Behavioral Intentions," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-20, March.
    14. Mai, Nhat Chi, 2018. "도이모이 이후 베트남의 주거 이동, 선택, 가격 결정요인 연구: 호치민시 사례 중심으로," OSF Preprints 6kdfy, Center for Open Science.
    15. Ali Ardeshiri & Spring Sampson & Joffre Swait, 2019. "Seasonality Effects on Consumers Preferences Over Quality Attributes of Different Beef Products," Papers 1902.02419, arXiv.org.
    16. Han, Heesup & Hyun, Sunghyup Sean, 2018. "What influences water conservation and towel reuse practices of hotel guests?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 87-97.
    17. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    18. Winitra Leelapattana & Shih-Yun Hsu & Weerapon Thongma & Chun Chen & Fu-Mei Chiang, 2019. "Understanding the Impact of Environmental Education on Tourists’ Future Visit Intentions to Leisure Farms in Mountain Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-13, March.
    19. Mathieu Lambotte & Stephane De Cara & Valentin Bellassen, 2020. "Once a quality-food consumer, always a quality-food consumer? Consumption patterns of organic, label rouge, and geographical indications in French scanner data," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(1), pages 147-172.
    20. Koistinen, Laura & Pouta, Eija & Heikkila, Jaakko & Forsman-Hugg, Sari & Kotro, Jaana & Makela, Jarmo & Niva, M., 2011. "Impact of meat type, methods of production, fat content, price and carbon footprint information on meat choice," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114710, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:5:p:2440-:d:504869. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.