Animal Welfare and Its Economic Dimensions: A Bibliometric Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v14i2.429-438.8383Keywords:
Animal Welfare Economics, Consumer Preferences, Labeling, Willingness to Pay, Payment WillingnessAbstract
Animal welfare has increasingly shifted from an ethical concern to an attribute with measurable economic consequences in agri-food systems. This study conducts a bibliometric analysis of 665 publications indexed in the Web of Science between 1982 and 2025, with a particular focus on consumer preferences and willingness to pay (WTP). The findings show a steady level of research in evidence until the mid-2000s, followed by an accelerated increase from 2009 onwards and then peaking in 2022. Articles and research contributions are mostly based in high income economies, such as the USA, Germany, Italy, and the UK. Keyword mapping indicates that WTP is the dominant theme of the literature, often related to concepts such as consumer attitudes, preferences, labelling and trust. Journal review and analysis highlight the interdisciplinarity of the field and contributions are made from economics, animal science, and food ethics. Despite notable advances, several challenges remain. The attitude–behaviour gap persists, as consumers often voice strong ethical concern but show reluctance to pay price premiums. Confusion caused by overlapping and inconsistent labels further complicates purchasing decisions, while research continues to focus predominantly on meat and dairy, leaving other livestock sectors underexplored. Overall, the findings suggest that harmonized certification schemes, transparent labeling, and consumer education are essential to strengthen market trust. By mapping intellectual structures and thematic clusters, this study provides an evidence-based perspective on how consumer-driven mechanisms can promote higher welfare standards.
References
Bolat, B. A., Kaygisiz, F., & Bulut, D. (2020). How consumers’ consciousness and perception levels affect purchase intention of organic chicken meat in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences, 44(6), 1306–1315. https://doi.org/10.3906/vet-2005-53
Can, B. A. (2023). Turkish consumers’ perceptions of organic milk and the factors affecting consumption: The case of Kocaeli, Türkiye. Sustainability, 15(13), 10044. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310044
Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2007). Consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare: Mobile abattoirs versus transportation to slaughter. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 34(3), 321–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbm025
Chang, M. Y., & Chen, H. S. (2022). Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to animal welfare-friendly products: Evidence from Taiwan. Nutrients, 14(21), 4571. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14214571
Clark, B., Stewart, G. B., Panzone, L. A., Kyriazakis, I., & Frewer, L. J. (2016). A systematic review of public attitudes, perceptions, and behaviours towards production diseases associated with farm animal welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Enviromental Ethics, 29(3), 455-478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-016-9615-x
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
Elbakidze, L., & Nayga, R. M., Jr. (2012). The effects of information on willingness to pay for animal welfare in dairy production: Application of nonhypothetical valuation mechanisms. Journal of Dairy Science, 95(3), 1099–1107. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4730
Gonçalves, G. O., & Lima, R. C. (2023). Consumer Willingness to Pay for Animals Welfare Products. Boletim do Tempo Presente, 12(01), 54-61.
Gorton, M., Yeh, C. H., Chatzopoulou, E., White, J., Tocco, B., Hubbard, C., & Hallam, F. (2023). Consumers’ willingness to pay for an animal welfare food label. Ecological Economics, 209, 107852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107852
Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001
Harper, G., & Henson, S. (2001). Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice EU FAIR CT98-3678 Final Report.
Heinola, K., Latvala, T., & Niemi, J. K. (2023). Consumer trust and willingness to pay for establishing a market-based animal welfare assurance scheme for broiler chickens. Poultry Science, 102(7), 102765.
Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality and Preference, 25(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.12.004
Kiliç, İ., & Bozkurt, Z. (2020). Assessment of Turkish consumer attitudes using an animal welfare attitude scale (AWAS). Veterinaria México OA, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.22201/fmvz.24486760e.2020.1.663
Lagerkvist, C. J., & Hess, S. (2011). A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq043
Liljenstolpe, C. (2008). Evaluating animal welfare with choice experiments: An application to Swedish pig production. Agribusiness: An International Journal, 24(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.20147
Morales, N., Ugaz, C., & Cañon-Jones, H. (2021). Perception of Animal Welfare in Laying Hens and Willingness-to-Pay of Eggs of Consumers in Santiago, Chile. Proceedings, 73(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/IECA2020-08836
Napolitano, F., Pacelli, C., Girolami, A., & Braghieri, A. (2008). Effect of information about animal welfare on consumer willingness to pay for yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(3), 910–917. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0709
Norwood, F. B., & Lusk, J. L. (2011). Compassion, by the pound: The economics of farm animal welfare. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199551163.001.0001
Phillips, C. J. C., Izmirli, S., Aldavood, S. J., Alonso, M., Choe, B. L., Hanlon, A., … & Rehn, T. (2012). Students’ attitudes to animal welfare and rights in Europe and Asia. Animal Welfare, 21(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.7120/096272812799129466
Tonsor, G. T., Wolf, C. A., & Olynk, N. (2009). Consumer preferences for animal welfare attributes: The case of gestation crates. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(3), 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1074070800003175
Tüfenk, Ö. G., & Bozkurt, Z. (2022). Consumer attitudes towards animal welfare and its relation to demographic and socio-economic factors. Bahri Dağdaş Hayvancılık Araştırma Dergisi, 11(2), 74–87.
Turan, Ö., Kadagan, O., & Gürbüz, İ. (2022). Differences between low-income and high-income buyers of organic milk and willingness to pay organic price premiums. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 34(12), 1042–1053. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2022.v34.i12.2966
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E., Miranda-de la Lama, G. C., Teixeira, D. L., Enríquez-Hidalgo, D., Tadich, T., & Lensink, J. (2017). Farm animal welfare influences on markets and consumer attitudes in Latin America: The cases of Mexico, Chile and Brazil. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30(5), 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-017-9695-2
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
Vigors, B. (2018). Reducing the consumer attitude– behaviour gap in animal welfare: The potential role of ‘nudges’. Animals, 8(12), 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8120232
Yang, J. M. (2023). Willingness to buy animal welfare products: A study on the conflict between moral attitudes and perceived higher prices. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 51(1), 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2023.2225586
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
