IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

  • Makdisi, Fadi
  • Marggraf, Rainer
Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/115359
    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA) in its series 51st Annual Conference, Halle, Germany, September 28-30, 2011 with number 115359.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: 2011
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi11:115359
    Contact details of provider: Postal: Bundesallee 50, 38116 Braunschweig
    Phone: 0531 / 596 5501
    Fax: 0531 / 596 5599
    Web page: http://www.gewisola.de/
    Email:


    More information through EDIRC

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. 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, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    2. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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, Department of Economics.
    5. 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.
    6. Bennett, Richard M. & Blaney, Ralph J.P., 2003. "Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method," Agricultural Economics of Agricultural Economists, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 29(1), July.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gewi11:115359. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (AgEcon Search)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.