Willingness To Pay For Sustainably Produced Beef: A Study on Urban Consumer Preferences

I Putu Gede Didik Widiarta; Budi Rahayu Tanama Putri; Cori Qamara; James Hellyward; Made Hardinata Wijakesuma

doi:10.21059/buletinpeternak.v49i3.107081

Willingness To Pay For Sustainably Produced Beef: A Study on Urban Consumer Preferences

https://doi.org/10.21059/buletinpeternak.v49i3.107081

I Putu Gede Didik Widiarta⁽¹⁾, Budi Rahayu Tanama Putri⁽²⁾, Cori Qamara^(3*), James Hellyward⁽⁴⁾, Made Hardinata Wijakesuma⁽⁵⁾

(1) Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Mulawarman University, Samarinda 75119
(2) Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Udayana University, Badung 80361
(3) Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Andalas University, Padang 25163
(4) Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal Science, Andalas University, Padang 25163
(5) Department of Recreation, Sport Pedagogy and Consumer Sciences, Ohio University, Athens OH 45701
(*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

The increasing environmental and ethical challenges associated with conventional beef production have intensified consumer awareness of sustainable food systems, particularly in urban areas of Indonesia. This study examines urban consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for sustainably produced beef, focusing on how sustainability attributes, including eco-certification, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability, affect purchasing decisions. Data were collected through a mixed-methods approach, integrating online surveys and Discrete Choice Experiments (DCE), involving a representative sample from five major urban centers: Jakarta, Surabaya, Padang, Balikpapan, and Denpasar. The findings indicate that eco-certification is the most valued attribute, with a marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) of IDR 25,000 per kilogram, followed by animal welfare (IDR 18,500) and environmental sustainability (IDR 15,000). Consumers also demonstrated a general willingness to pay a 20% premium for sustainably produced beef, although regional disparities were observed. Jakarta and Surabaya exhibited the highest WTP premiums, at 23% and 22%, respectively, reflecting the influence of socioeconomic variables, including income, educational attainment, and environmental awareness. These results underscore the growing importance of environmental concerns and ethical considerations in shaping urban consumers’ preferences for beef products. The study contributes to the limited body of literature on sustainable meat consumption behavior in emerging markets, offering practical insights for policymakers, producers, and marketers in designing targeted strategies to promote sustainable beef consumption and support the development of environmentally responsible livestock industries in Indonesia.

Keywords

Consumer preferences, Sustainably produced beef, Urban consumers, Willingness to pay

Full Text:

8. Cori Qamara 226-236

References

Amalia, D. C., Badriah, L. S., & Sambodo, H. (2025). Demand Analysis Of Beef In Indonesia. Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis, 14(1).

Ammann, J., Mack, G., El Benni, N., & Saleh, R. (2025). Consumers would rather buy a product with a levy for enhancing animal welfare than for environmental sustainability. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 53, 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.11.024

Arman, S. M., & Mark‐Herbert, C. (2024). Ethical consumption: a review and research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 48(5), e13079. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.13079

Armutcu, B., Zuferi, R., & Tan, A. (2024). Green product consumption behaviour, green economic growth and sustainable development: unveiling the main determinants. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 18(4), 798-819. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-05-2023-0074

Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). (2022). Statistics of Beef Consumption in Indonesia. Jakarta: BPS.

Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). (2023). Indikator Demografi Perkotaan Indonesia. Jakarta: BPS.

Bazhan, M., Shafiei Sabet, F., & Borumandnia, N. (2024). Factors affecting purchase intention of organic food products: Evidence from a developing nation context. Food Science & Nutrition, 12(5), 3469-3482. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.4015

Cheng, L., Cui, H., Zhang, Z., Yang, M., & Zhou, Y. (2024). Study on consumers' motivation to buy green food based on meta-analysis. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8, 1405787.

da Silva Teixeira Cucato, J., Santino Bizarrias, F., Iara Strehlau, V., Oliveira Ferreira, M. C., & Goulart da Silva, J. (2025). The Impact of Environmental Awareness and Consumption Ethics on Proactive Environmental Behaviour: The Mediating Role of Political Position. Market-Tržište, 37(SI), 9-23.

Donato, C. (2025). Eco-Label as a Sustainable Communication Tool. In Eco-Label Visual Design and Sustainability: The Impact on Consumer Perceptions and Market Trends (pp. 5-38). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

FAO. (2021). The State of Food and Agriculture 2021: Making Agrifood Systems More Resilient to Shocks and Stresses. Rome: FAO.

Hornok, C., & Raeskyesa, D. G. S. (2024). Economic zones and local income inequality: Evidence from Indonesia. The Journal of Economic Inequality, 22(1), 69-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10888-023-09581-x

IPCC. (2019). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. Geneva: IPCC.

Iranzad, R., & Liu, X. (2024). A review of random forest-based feature selection methods for data science education and applications. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 1-15.

Jia, F., Shahzadi, G., Bourlakis, M., & John, A. (2024). Promoting resilient and sustainable food systems: A systematic literature review on short food supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 435, 140364.

Kementerian Lingkungan Hidup dan Kehutanan (KLHK). (2021). Report on the State of Indonesia's Environment 2021. Jakarta: KLHK.

Kementerian Pertanian Republik Indonesia. (2022). Livestock and Animal Health Statistics 2022. Jakarta: Ministry of Agriculture.

Kovacheva, M., Markovska, V., & Kulova, I. (2024). Price sensitivity of consumers to organic food and the most frequently purchased categories of organic food. In BIO Web of Conferences (Vol. 102, p. 04005). EDP Sciences.

Majer, J. M., Henscher, H. A., Reuber, P., Fischer-Kreer, D., & Fischer, D. (2022). The effects of visual sustainability labels on consumer perception and behavior: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 33, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.06.012

Nsabiyeze, A., Ma, R., Li, J., Luo, H., Zhao, Q., Tomka, J., & Zhang, M. (2024). Tackling climate change in agriculture: A global evaluation of the effectiveness of carbon emission reduction policies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142973

Paramitasari, N., Khoirunurrofik, K., Mahi, B. R., & Hartono, D. (2024). Charting vocational education: impact of agglomeration economies on job–education mismatch in Indonesia. Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, 8(2), 461-491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41685-024-00333-x

Šebo, J., Gondová, L., & Badidová, A. (2025). Consumer Awareness and Willingness to Pay for Eco-Labeled Products: Evidence from Slovakia. Quality Innovation Prosperity, 29(1), 114-131. https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v29i1.2164

Sharma, P., Singhal, A., & Agarwal, P. (2023). The role of income and education in promoting sustainable consumption behavior. Journal of Consumer Studies, 28(3), 204-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-21677-2

Sihombing, L., & Suryani, L. (2022). Demographic shifts and the growing economic potential of Indonesia's urban middle class. Asian Economic Policy Review, 17(2), 204-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/aepr.12456

Siramaneerat, I., Astutik, E., Agushybana, F., Bhumkittipich, P., & Lamprom, W. (2024). Examining determinants of stunting in Urban and Rural Indonesian: a multilevel analysis using the population-based Indonesian family life survey (IFLS). BMC public health, 24(1), 1371. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18824-z

Susanto, H., Nugroho, P., & Priyadi, R. (2022). Price sensitivity of consumers towards sustainable food products in Indonesia. Journal of Economic Development, 49(5), 521-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/07053622.2022.2065750

Train, K. E. (2019). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Consumers’ willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: Evidence from choice experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 31, 156-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.014

Wankar, A. K., Bhangale, G. N., Rindhe, S. N., Kumawat, B. L., & Shafi, T. A. (2024). Heat stress in beef cattle: Climate change and the global scenario–A review. Annals of Animal Science, 24(4), 1093-1105.

Wibowo, A., & Damanik, D. (2023). Environmental sustainability and consumer demand for ethical food production in Indonesia: The case of beef. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, 7(1), 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/2345267X.2023.2172490

Widiarta, I. P. G. D., Qamara, C., Fatmarischa, N., Arifin, D. N., Putra, I. G. A. M., & Wijakesuma, M. H. (2025). Consumer Segmentation and Purchase Behavior in the Frozen Beef Market: Optimizing Product Attributes for Sustainability-Oriented Marketing Strategies. SEAS (Sustainable Environment Agricultural Science), 9(1), 63-74.

Widodo, A., Rubiyanti, N., & Madiawati, P. N. (2025). Investigating the influence of eco-labels on consumer behavior in Indonesia’s developing green market. Management & Sustainability: An Arab Review. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSAR-02-2025-0054

Xu, H., Wu, T., Budhathoki, M., Fang, D. S., Zhang, W., & Wang, X. (2024). Consumption Patterns and Willingness to Pay for Sustainable Aquatic Food in China. Foods, 13(15), 2435. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13152435

Yuan, R., Jin, S., & Wu, W. (2024). Interactive effects of information and trust on consumer choices of organic food: evidence from China. Appetite, 192, 107115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.107115

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21059/buletinpeternak.v49i3.107081