IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i7p1878-d218057.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disgusting or Innovative-Consumer Willingness to Pay for Insect Based Burger Patties in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Lukas Kornher

    (Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

  • Martin Schellhorn

    (Department of Food Economics and Consumption Studies, Kiel University, 24118 Kiel, Germany)

  • Saskia Vetter

    (Department of Food Economics and Consumption Studies, Kiel University, 24118 Kiel, Germany)

Abstract

Insects represent an excellent source of food due to their density in unsaturated fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals, while their production is associated with lower emissions of greenhouse gases and resource use as compared to other conventional protein sources. In most Western countries, the human consumption of insects is very low and often perceived as culturally inappropriate. In this study, we analyzed the preferences of German consumers for insect-based products to intensify the knowledge about specific consumer segments that are willing to adopt insects into their diet. For this purpose, an online based choice experiment was conducted in 2016, in which respondents chose between an ordinary burger and a burger with a beef burger patty fortified with insect flour. We detect three homogeneous consumer segments in our sample. The largest group of respondents is willing to consume insect-fortified burgers with only a small price discount, while the other respondents had a prohibitively low willingness-to-pay. The readiness of consumers to adopt insects into their diet is strongly related to attitudinal variables, such as preferences for an environmental friendly production method and health aspects. On the other hand, disgust and the aversion towards insects seem to be the main reasons to abstain from eating insects.

Suggested Citation

  • Lukas Kornher & Martin Schellhorn & Saskia Vetter, 2019. "Disgusting or Innovative-Consumer Willingness to Pay for Insect Based Burger Patties in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-20, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1878-:d:218057
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1878/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/7/1878/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gensler, Sonja & Hinz, Oliver & Skiera, Bernd & Theysohn, Sven, 2012. "Willingness-to-pay estimation with choice-based conjoint analysis: Addressing extreme response behavior with individually adapted designs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 368-378.
    2. Vermeulen, Bart & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 94-103.
    3. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    4. Kessels, Roselinde & Goos, Peter & Vandebroek, Martina, 2008. "Optimal designs for conjoint experiments," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(5), pages 2369-2387, January.
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John N. Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2017. "Can insects increase food security in developing countries? An analysis of Kenyan consumer preferences and demand for cricket flour buns," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 9(3), pages 471-484, June.
    6. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    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. Giotis, Thomas & Drichoutis, Andreas C., 2020. "Consumer acceptance and willingness-to-pay for insect-based foods: The role of proximity of insects in the food chain," MPRA Paper 104840, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    4. Ponce Oliva, Roberto D. & Vasquez-Lavín, Felipe & San Martin, Valeska A. & Hernández, José Ignacio & Vargas, Cristian A. & Gonzalez, Pablo S. & Gelcich, Stefan, 2019. "Ocean Acidification, Consumers' Preferences, and Market Adaptation Strategies in the Mussel Aquaculture Industry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 42-50.
    5. Eunae Son & Song Soo Lim, 2021. "Consumer Acceptance of Gene-Edited versus Genetically Modified Foods in Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-17, April.
    6. A. Cristina Mihale-Wilson & Jan Zibuschka & Oliver Hinz, 2019. "User preferences and willingness to pay for in-vehicle assistance," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(1), pages 37-53, March.
    7. Meixner, Oliver & Haas, Rainer, 2017. "The Difficulties in Measuring Individual Utilities of Product Attributes: A Choice Based Experiment," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276887, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    8. Meixner, Oliver & Haas, Rainer, 2017. "The Difficulties in Measuring Individual Utilities of Product Attributes: A Choice Based Experiment," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 2017(1), June.
    9. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    10. Xiaogu Li & Christopher Clark & Kimberly Jensen & Steven Yen, 2014. "Will consumers follow climate leaders? The effect of manufacturer participation in a voluntary environmental program on consumer preferences," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 16(1), pages 69-87, January.
    11. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    12. Stefano Ciliberti & Simone Del Sarto & Angelo Frascarelli & Giulia Pastorelli & Gaetano Martino, 2020. "Contracts to Govern the Transition towards Sustainable Production: Evidence from a Discrete Choice Analysis in the Durum Wheat Sector in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-14, November.
    13. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    14. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas, 2013. "The political economics of social health insurance: the tricky case of individuals’ preferences," MPRA Paper 44534, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Charity, Nabwire Ephamia Juma, 2016. "Economic Analysis Of Consumers’ Awareness And Willingness To Pay For Geographical Indicators And Other Quality Attributes Of Honey In Kenya," Research Theses 265574, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    16. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    17. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    18. Margaux Lapierre & Gwenolé Le Velly & Douadia Bougherara & Raphaële Préget & Alexandre Sauquet, 2023. "Designing Agri-Environmental Schemes to cope with uncertainty," Post-Print hal-04690270, HAL.
    19. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2017. "Assessing Farmers’ Preferences To Participate In Agri-environment Policies In Thailand," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260888, 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:11:y:2019:i:7:p:1878-:d:218057. 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.