IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/gewi16/244890.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Zahlungsbereitschaft Für Tierwohl

Author

Listed:
  • Petershammer, Silke
  • Dahlhausen, Johanna
  • Roosen, Jutta

Abstract

Die Politik und die Verbraucher wünschen sich Änderungen in den Tierhaltungsbedingungen. Doch ein Mehr an Tierwohl verursacht auch höhere Kosten. Deshalb stellt sich die Frage nach der Zahlungsbereitschaft der Konsumenten für höhere Tierwohlstandards. Ziel dieser Studie ist es herauszufinden, wie die Präferenzen für Tierwohlstandards am sinnvollsten gemessen werden können. Zusammenfassend ist ersichtlich, dass eine hypothetische Zahlungsbereitschaft für Produkte aus artgerechterer Haltung gegeben ist. Dabei können die Studien, die eine Zahlungsbereitschaft für ein Label untersuchen, nur eine allgemeine Aussage treffen, welche Veränderungen sich der Verbraucher konkret wünscht, bleibt unklar. Die Studien, die konkrete Haltungsbedingungen betrachten, können ein differenzierteres Bild geben.

Suggested Citation

  • Petershammer, Silke & Dahlhausen, Johanna & Roosen, Jutta, 2016. "Zahlungsbereitschaft Für Tierwohl," 56th Annual Conference, Bonn, Germany, September 28-30, 2016 244890, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:gewi16:244890
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.244890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/244890/files/Petershammer.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.244890?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. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole J. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-17, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Jutta Roosen & Jayson L. Lusk & John A. Fox, 2003. "Consumer demand for and attitudes toward alternative beef labeling strategies in France, Germany, and the UK," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(1), pages 77-90.
    4. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    2. Inken Christoph-Schulz & Anja-Karolina Rovers, 2020. "German Citizens’ Perception of Fattening Pig Husbandry—Evidence from a Mixed Methods Approach," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    3. Morales, L. Emilio & Griffith, Garry & Fleming, Euan & Mounter, Stuart & Wright, Victor & Umberger, Wendy, 2020. "Preferences for Certified Beef with Animal Welfare and Other Credence Attributes in Australia," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(03), September.
    4. 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.
    5. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    6. 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).
    7. Tina L. Saitone & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2015. "What Happens When Food Marketers Require Restrictive Farming Practices?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1021-1043.
    8. Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano & Carlucci, Domenico & De Devitiis, Biagia & Seccia, Antonio & Stasi, Antonio & Viscecchia, Rosaria & Nardone, Gianluca, 2017. "Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry," MPRA Paper 82105, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. 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.
    10. Grebitus, Carola & Colson, Gregory & Menapace, Luisa, . "A comparison of hypothetical survey rankings with consumer shopping behavior and product knowledge," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(01), pages 1-13.
    11. Wang, Shuxian & Wu, Linhai & Zhu, Dian & Wang, Hongsha & Xu, Lingling, 2014. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food attributes: The case of pork," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 165639, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Tully, Stephanie M. & Winer, Russell S., 2014. "The Role of the Beneficiary in Willingness to Pay for Socially Responsible Products: A Meta-analysis," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 255-274.
    13. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    14. Blemings, Benjamin & Zhang, Peilu & Neill, Clinton L., 2023. "Where is the value? The impacts of sow gestation crate laws on pork supply and consumer value perceptions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Schulze-Ehlers, Birgit & Purwins, Nina, 2016. "Does having a Choice make a Difference? Market Potential of the Animal Welfare Label in Germany," 2016 International European Forum (151st EAAE Seminar), February 15-19, 2016, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 244531, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    16. Grebitus, Carola & Colson, Gregory & Menapace, Luisa, 2012. "A Comparison of Hypothetical Survey Rankings with Consumer Shopping Behavior," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(1), pages 35-47, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Norwood, F. Bailey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2011. "A calibrated auction-conjoint valuation method: Valuing pork and eggs produced under differing animal welfare conditions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 80-94, July.
    19. Bicknell, Kathryn, 2011. "The Distributional Implications for Higher Farm Animal Welfare in New Zealand," 2011 Conference, August 25-26, 2011, Nelson, New Zealand 115418, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    20. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:gewi16:244890. 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.