Citizens' views on farm animal welfare and related information provision: Exploratory insights from Flanders, belgium
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (forthcoming)
|Abstract||The results of two independent empirical studies with Flemish citizens were combined to address the problem of a short fall of information provision about higher welfare products. The research objectives were (1) to improve our understanding of how citizens conceptualize farm animal welfare, (2) to analyze the variety in the claimed personal relevance of animal welfare in the food purchasing decision process, and (3) to find out people’s needs in relation to product information about animal welfare and the extent to which the current information caters to these needs. The first study consisted of a survey conducted in three consecutive years (2000–2002, n = 521) and was complemented with more recent qualitative data from four focus group discussions (2006, n = 29). Citizens’ conceptualization of farm animal welfare matched reasonably well with those in the scientific literature, although it is clearly influenced by a lower level of practical experience and a higher weight of empathy. In general, respondents indicated that animal welfare was an important product attribute, although it was less important than primary product attributes such as quality, health, and safety. Moral issues, rather than a perception of higher quality, were the main influence on preferences for higher welfare products. At present, higher standards of animal welfare are mostly guaranteed within more general quality assurance schemes. Yet people’s decisions to not choose higher welfare products seems to be related to the perceptual disconnection between eating animal food products and the living producing animals. Respondents generally thought better information provision was required and the present level of provision was strongly criticized. In combination, the findings of both studies help inform the discussion about how citizens can be informed about animal welfare and the preferred content, source, and medium of such information . The paper also provides insights into citizens’ semantic interpretation of the concept of animal welfare ( what wordings they use ) and the range of relevance that animal welfare has for different groups that, in turn is useful in identifying which segments can be targeted. This can contribute to a more effective valorization of animal welfare as a product attribute.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
J. F. Hurnik & Hugh Lehman (1988). Ethics and Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (4):305-318.
Rodrigue El Balaa & Michel Marie (2006). Animal Welfare Considerations in Small Ruminant Breeding Specifications. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1).
C. R. W. Spedding (2000). Animal Welfare. Earthscan Publications.
Andrea Bradley & Rod MacRae (forthcoming). Legitimacy & Canadian Farm Animal Welfare Standards Development: The Case of the National Farm Animal Care Council. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.
Kirsten Schmidt (2011). Concepts of Animal Welfare in Relation to Positions in Animal Ethics. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (2):153-171.
M. B. M. Bracke, K. H. De Greef & H. Hopster (2005). Qualitative Stakeholder Analysis for the Development of Sustainable Monitoring Systems for Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (1).
David J. Mellor (2009). The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell.
Anne Algers, Berner Lindström & Edmond Pajor (2011). A New Format for Learning About Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):367-379.
Edmond A. Pajor (2011). A New Format for Learning About Farm Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (4):367-379.
Filiep Vanhonacker, Wim Verbeke, Els van Poucke, Zuzanna Pieniak, Griet Nijs & Frank Tuyttens (2012). The Concept of Farm Animal Welfare: Citizen Perceptions and Stakeholder Opinion in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (1):79-101.
Added to index2010-01-27
Total downloads4 ( #178,434 of 548,979 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,979 )
How can I increase my downloads?