• Citizens were asked to rate housing elements on pictures in an online survey. • Near-natural elements (i.e. wallow, straw bedding, rooting area) were rated most animal welfare enhancing. • Simple elements (i.e. toys) were not rated as able to increase animal welfare. • Costs of installing enrichment elements were evaluated as negligible. • Two citizen segments showing different ratings of the housing elements were identified. The level of animal welfare in intensive pig production has been subject to increasing public criticism in recent years. Previous studies revealed a clear citizens' demand for more species-appropriate pig husbandry systems with various enriching housing elements that ensure adequate behaviour and animal welfare. However, despite intense public debates, to the best of our knowledge, no research has been done to examine a more differentiated rating by citizens of enriching housing elements that can potentially be integrated in farming systems and thus increase social acceptance. Against this background, 14 housing elements were selected that are known to potentially enrich the pigs' environment. We used a picture-based survey design to show participants what each element looks like. Participants were recruited through an online panel provider using quota sampling. 414 German citizens were asked to rate the selected enrichment elements. In addition to compare the rating of enrichment elements, we conducted a cluster analysis based on the participants' attitudes towards animal welfare. Participants believed nine out of the 14 housing elements to have a positive influence on animal welfare and to be an important element in a pigsty. Wallows were appreciated the most, closely followed by straw as bedding and enrichment material in a separate rooting area. Showers, tubs, and straw as enrichment material in containers were rated positively as well, although to a lesser extent. In contrast, the slatted outdoor area and all four enriching objects (toys) performed comparatively poorly. Overall, costs associated with the installation/usage of the respective housing elements were rated rather low, and practicability issues were mostly rated as negligible. We identified two citizen segments that showed different ratings of the housing elements and which also differed in gender, meat consumption patterns, interest in agricultural topics, and self-perceived knowledge of animal husbandry. The findings are valuable for farmers to adapt their production systems. Wallows, straw bedding and rooting areas can improve the animal welfare perception from a citizens' point of view, although there seem to be different citizen segments. Simple toys and slatted areas, even outdoors, seem to be less appropriate when communicating improved husbandry systems to the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]