Citizens’ understanding of welfare of animals on the farm: An empirical study

References

• Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J., Edwards-Jones, G., & Arey, D. (2005). Attitudes to farm animal welfare: Factor structure and personality correlates in farmers and agricultural students. Journal of Individual Differences, 26, 107–120. doi:10.1027/1614-0001.26.3.107
   Google Scholar
• Bahlmann, J., & Spiller, A. (2008). Who coordinates the supply chain? (Wer koordiniert die Wertschöpfungskette?) Fleischwirtschaft, 88, 23–29.
   Google Scholar
• Barth, S. (1998). The written survey (Die schriftliche Befragung). Retrieved from http://www.hb.fh-muenster.de/opus/fhms/volltexte/2011/713
   Google Scholar
• Bergschmidt, A., & Schrader, L. (2009). Application of an animal welfare assessment system for policy evaluation: Does the farm investment scheme improve animal welfare in subsidised new stables? Landbauforschung – vTI Agriculture and Forestry Research, 2, 95–104.
   Google Scholar
• BiB (Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung). (2016). Average age of the population (Durchschnittsalter der Bevölkerung). Retrieved from http://www.bib-demografie.de/SharedDocs/Glossareintraege/DE/D/durchschnittsalter_bevoelkerung.html
   Google Scholar
• Blaha, T., Meiners, C., Tölle, K. H., & Otto, G. (2014). Test of practicable solutions for the renunciation of tail clipping with special regard to the economic effects (Abschlussbericht des Berichts Erprobung von praxistauglichen Lösungen zum Verzicht des Kupierens der Schwänze bei Schweinen unter besonderer Betrachtung der wirtschaftlichen Folgen). Retrieved from http://www.ml.niedersachsen.de/portal/live.php?navigation_id=32027&article_id=110872&_psmand=7
   Google Scholar
• Blandford, D., & Fulponi, L. (1999). Emerging public concerns in agriculture: Domestic policies and international trade commitments. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 26, 409–424. doi:10.1093/erae/26.3.409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blokhuis, H. J. (2009). Background and approach of the Welfare Quality Project. Berlin, Germany: Statements präsentiert auf der DLG-Wintertagung der Deutschen Landwirtschafts-Gesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• Bock, B. B., & Van Huik, M. M. (2007). Animal welfare: The attitudes and behaviour of European farmers. British Food Journal, 109, 931–944. doi:10.1108/00070700710835732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boogaard, B. K., Oosting, S. J., & Bock, B. B. (2006). Elements of societal perception of farm animal welfare: A quantitative study from The Netherlands. Livestock Science, 104, 13–22. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.02.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botreau, R., Veissier, I., & Perny, P. (2009). Overall assessment of animal welfare: Strategy adopted in welfare quality. Animal Welfare, 18, 363–370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bracke, M. B. M. (2007). Animal-based parameters are no panacea for on-farm monitoring of animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 16, 229–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bühl, A. (2008). SPSS 18: Introduction into modern data analysis (Einführung in die moderne Datenanalyse) (12th ed.). Munich, Germany: Pearson Studium.
   Google Scholar
• Buller, H., & Cesar, C. (2007). Eating well, eating fare: Farm animal welfare in France. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 15, 45–58.
   Google Scholar
• Burda Community Network. (2009). Typologies of wishes: People - Media - Markets (Typologie der Wünsche 2009: Menschen-Medien-Märkte). Offenburg, Germany: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Coff, C., Korthals, M., & Barling, D. (2008). Ethical traceability and informed food choice: Ethical traceability and communicating food. In C. Coff, D. Barling, M. Korthals, & N. Thorkild (Eds.), The international library of environmental, agricultural and food ethics (15th ed., pp. 1–18). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• De Greef, K., Stafleu, F., & De Lauwere, C. (2006). A simple value-distinction approach aids transparency in farm animal welfare debates. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 57–66. doi:10.1007/s10806-005-4527-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jonge, J., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (2013). Meeting heterogeneity in consumer demand for animal welfare: A reflection of existing knowledge and implication for the meat sector. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26, 629–661. doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9426-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deimel, I., Franz, A., Frentrup, M., Von Meyer, M., Spiller, A., & Theuvsen, L. (2010). Perspectives for a European animal welfare label (Perspektiven für ein Europäisches Tierschutzlabel). Retrieved from http://download.ble.de/08HS010.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Deimel, I., Franz, A., & Spiller, A. (2011). The animal welfare understanding of German pig farmers: An analysis of agricultural frames (Das Animal Welfare-Verständnis deutscher Schweinemäster: Eine Analyse landwirtschaftlicher Frames). Jahrbuch Der Österreichischen Gesellschaft Für Agrarökonomie, 20, 191–200.
   Google Scholar
• Deimel, I., Franz, A., & Spiller, A. (2012). Animal welfare: An empirical analysis of agricultural frames (‘Animal welfare’: Eine empirische Analyse landwirtschaftlicher Frames). German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 114–126.
   Google Scholar
• Destatis. (2016a). People sorted by gender and nationality (Bevölkerung nach Geschlecht und Staatsangehörigkeit). Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Tabellen/Zensus_Geschlecht_Staatsangehoerigkeit.html;jsessionid=8EBD2A07B3C19513135B691042969DEA.cae3
   Google Scholar
• Destatis. (2016b). Educational level: people sorted by educational attainment in Germany (Bildungsstand: Bevölkerung nach Bildungsabschluss in Deutschland). Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/Tabellen/Bildungsabschluss.html.
   Google Scholar
• Destatis. (2016c). Income, revenue and expenditure (Einkommen, Einnahmen & Ausgaben). Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingugen/EinkommenEinnahmenAusgaben/Tabellen/Haushaltsnettoeinkommen.html
   Google Scholar
• Destatis. (2016d). Region and population: Area and population (Gebiet und Bevölkerung: Fläche und Bevölkerung). Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/EinkommenEinnahmenAusgaben/Tabellen/Haushaltsnettoeinkommen.html
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, I. J. H. (1993). Welfare is to do with what animals feel. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6, 8–14.
   Google Scholar
• Duncan, I. J. H., & Fraser, D. (1997). Understanding animal welfare. In M. C. Appleby & B. O. Hughes (Eds.), Animal welfare (pp. 19–31). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2005). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer 229, Wave 63.2. TNS Opinion and Social. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_229_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2007a). Attitudes of consumers towards the welfare of farmed animals. Special Eurobarometer, 229(2). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/survey/sp_barometer_fa_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2007b). Attitudes of EU citizens towards animal welfare. Special Eurobarometer 270. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_270_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Everitt, B. S. (1998). The Cambridge dictionary of statistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, M. W. (2009). Defining animal welfare: Does consistency matter? New Zealand Veterinary Journal, 57, 71–73. doi:10.1080/00480169.2009.36880
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franz, A., Deimel, I., & Spiller, A. (2012). Concerns about animal welfare: A cluster analysis of German pig farmers. British Food Journal, 114, 1445–1462. doi:10.1108/00070701211263019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, D. (2003). Assessing animal welfare at farm and group level: The interplay of science and values. Animal Welfare, 12, 433–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, D. (2006). Animal welfare assurance programs in food production: A framework for assessing the options. Animal Welfare, 15, 433–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding animal welfare. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, 50(Suppl. 1), 1–7. doi:10.1186/1751-0147-50-S1-S1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fraser, D. (2009). Assessing animal welfare: Different philosophies, different scientific approaches. Zoo Biology, 28, 507–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golan, E., Kuchler, E., & Mitchell, L. (2000). Economics of food labelling ( Agricultural Economic Report, No. 793). Economic Research Service, Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
   Google Scholar
• Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 369–391. doi:10.1093/eurrag/jbi011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2006). Creating markets for eco-labelling: Are consumers insignificant? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 477–489. doi:10.1111/ijc.2006.30.issue-5
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, H., & Lagerkvist, C. J. (2012). Measuring farmers’ attitudes to animal welfare and health. British Food Journal, 114, 840–852. doi:10.1108/00070701211234363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper, G., & Henson, S. (2001). Consumer concerns about animal welfare and the impact on food choice ( EU-Project EU-FAIR-CT-98-3678. Final Report). Reading, UK: Centre for Food Economics Research, Department of Agriculture and Food Economics, The University of Reading.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, D., & Hubbard, C. (2013). Reconsidering the economy of FAW: An anatomy of market failure. Food Policy, 38, 105–114. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.11.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heise, H., Kemper, N., & Theuvsen, L. (2015). Veterinarians understanding of farm animal welfare: Results of an empirical study (Was verstehen Tierärzte unter Tierwohl? Ergebnisse einer empirischen Erhebung). Tierärztliche Umschau, 70, 299–304.
   Google Scholar
• Heise, H., & Theuvsen, L. (2015). Biological functioning, natural living or welfare quality: investigations of farmers’ understanding of farm animal welfare (Biological functioning, natural living oder welfare quality: Untersuchungen zum Tierwohlverständnis deutscher Landwirte). Berichte Über Landwirtschaft, 93, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Kanis, E., Groen, A. B. F., & De Greef, K. H. (2003). Societal concerns about pork and pork production and their relationships to the production system. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 16, 137–162. doi:10.1023/A:1022985913847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keeling, L., Evans, A., Forkmann, B., & Kjaernes, U. (2013). Welfare quality principles and criteria. In H. Blokhuis, M. Miele, I. Veissier, & B. Jones (Eds.), Improving farm animal welfare. Science and society working together: The welfare quality approach (pp. 91–114). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Kiley-Worthington, M. (1989). Ecological, ethological and ethically sound environments for animals: Toward symbiosis. Journal of Agricultural Ethics, 2, 323–347. doi:10.1007/BF01826810
   Google Scholar
• Knierim, U., & Staack, M. (2003). Study about the animal welfare of husbandry systems for laying hens (Studie zur Tiergerechtheit von Haltungssystemen für Legehennen). Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. Retrieved from http://www.make-sense.org/fileadmin/Daten-KAB/KAB-Debatte-2003/BUND-Legehennen.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lassen, J., Sandoe, P., & Forkman, B. (2006). Happy pigs are dirty! Conflicting perspectives on animal welfare. Livestock Science, 103, 221–230. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, V., Coleman, G., Gunnarsson, S., Appleby, M. C., & Karkinen, K. (2006). Animal welfare science: Working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 97, 37–49. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2005.11.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, V., Hemlini, S., & White, J. (2004). Natural behaviour, animal rights, or making money: A study of Swedish organic farmers’ view of animal issues. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 17, 391–424. doi:10.1023/A:1013049601079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lund, V., & Röcklinsberg, H. (2001). Outlining a conception of animal welfare for organic farming systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, 391–424. doi:10.1023/A:1013049601079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk, J. L., & Norwood, F. B. (2012). Speciesism, altruism and the economics of animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 39, 189–212. doi:10.1093/erae/jbr015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marie, M. (2006). Ethics: The new challenge for animal agriculture. Livestock Science, 103, 203–207. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2006.05.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayring, P. (2008). Qualitative content analysis (Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse): Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim, Germany: UTB.
   Google Scholar
• Meuwissen, M.P.M., Van der Lans, I.A. & Huirne, R.B.M (2004, May 27–28). A synthesis of consumer behaviour and chain design. In: Dynamics in Chains and Networks (Ed.), Sixth International Conference on Chain and Network Management in Agribusiness and the Food Industry. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Ede, The Netherlands, pp. 310–317
   Google Scholar
• Miele, M., Veissier, I., Evans, A., & Botreau, R. (2011). Animal welfare: Establishing a dialogue between science and society. Animal Welfare, 20, 103–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsenthaler, C. (2013). What is qualitative content analysis? (Was ist ‘Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse?’) In M. W. Schnell, C. Schulz, H. Kolbe, & C. Dunger (Eds.), Der Patient am Lebensende. Eine qualitative Inhaltsanalyse (pp. 23–42). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rushen, J. (2003). Changing concepts of farm animal welfare: Bridging the gap between applied and basic research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 81, 199–214. doi:10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00281-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schröder., M. J. A., & McEachern, M. G. (2004). Consumer value conflicts surrounding ethical food purchase decisions: A focus on animal welfare. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 28, 168–177. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2003.00357.x
   Google Scholar
• Schulze, B., Spiller, A., & Lemke, D. (2008). Lucky pig or poor sow? Consumers attitudes towards modern livestock production (Glücksschwein oder arme Sau? Die Einstellung der Verbraucher zur modernen Nutztierhaltung). In A. Spiller & B. Schulze (Eds.), Zukunftsperspektiven der Fleischwirtschaft: Verbraucher, Märkte, Geschäftsbeziehungen (pp. 465–488). Goettingen, Germany: University Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sundrum, A. (2015). Position paper about the topic of animal welfare. Animal welfare is incommensurable with predominant production-related deseases (Positionspapier zum Thema Tierwohl. Tierwohl ist mit den vorherrschenden Produktionskrankheiten nicht zu vereinbaren). Retrieved from https://www.uni-kassel.de/fb11agrar/fileadmin/datas/fb11/Tierern%C3%A4hrung_und_Tiergesundheit/Dokumente/Positionspapier_zum_Thema_Tierwohl.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Te Velde, H., Aarts, N., & Van Woerkium, C. (2002). Dealing with ambivalence: Farmers’ and consumers’ perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 203–219. doi:10.1023/A:1015012403331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Theuvsen, L. (2011). Tierschutzlabel: Handlungsoptionen – Wirkungen – Verantwortlichkeiten. In Akademie für tierärztliche Fortbildung, Fachgruppe Tierschutz und Institut für Tierhygiene, Tierschutz und Nutztierethologie der Stiftung Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover (Ed.), Aktuelle Probleme des Tierschutzes (pp. 63–71). Hannover, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Tuyttens, F. A. M., Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Quantitative verification of the correspondence between the welfare quality operational definition of farm animal welfare and the opinion of Flemish farmers, citizens and vegetarians. Livestock Science, 131, 108–114. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2010.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhonacker, F., Van Poucke, E., Tuyttens, F., & Verbeke, W. (2010). Citizens’ view on farm animal welfare and related information provision: Exploratory insights from Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23, 551–569. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhonacker, F., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Public and consumer policies for higher welfare food products: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27, 153–171. doi:10.1007/s10806-013-9479-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Buijs, S., & Tuyttens, F. A. M. (2009). Social concern related to stocking density, pen size and group size in farm animal production. Livestock Science, 123, 16–22. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2008.09.023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., Piniak, Z., Nijs, G., & Tuyttens, F. (2012). The concept of farm animal welfare: Citizen perceptions and stakeholder opinion in Flanders, Belgium. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 79–101. doi:10.1007/s10806-010-9299-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanhonacker, F., Verbeke, W., Van Poucke, E., & Tuyttens, F. (2008). Do citizens and farmers interpret the concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livestock Science, 116, 126–136. doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Poucke, E., Vanhonacker, F., Griet, N., Braeckman, J., Verbeke, W., & Tuyttens, F. (2006). Defining the concept of animal welfare: Integrating the opinion of citizens and other stakeholders. In M. Kaiser & M. E. Lien (Eds.), Ethics and the politics of food (pp. 580–582). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268371524
   Google Scholar
• Verbeke, W. (2009). Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare, 18, 325–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wissenschaftlicher Beirat für Agrarpolitik beim BMEL (Ways towards a socially accepted livestock production). (2015). Wege zu einer gesellschaftlich akzeptierten Nutztierhaltung. Gutachten,. Retrieved from http://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Ministerium/Beiraete/Agrarpolitik/GutachtenNutztierhaltung.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
   Google Scholar