IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0109177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Survey of Chinese Citizens’ Perceptions on Farm Animal Welfare

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaolin You
  • Yibo Li
  • Min Zhang
  • Huoqi Yan
  • Ruqian Zhao

Abstract

Farm animal welfare has been gradually recognized as an important issue in most parts of the world. In China, domestic animals were traditionally raised in backyard and treated as an important component of family wealth. Industrialization of animal production brings forth the farm animal welfare concerns recently in China, yet the modern concept of animal welfare has not been publicized and a comprehensive recognition on how consumers and farmers perceive animal welfare is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a survey on public opinions toward farm animal welfare in China, based on pigs (including sows, piglets, and fattening pigs), domestic fowls (including layers and broilers) and their products. From 6,006 effective questionnaires approximately two thirds of the respondents had never heard of ‘animal welfare’; 72.9% of the respondents claimed that, for the sake of animal derived food safety, human beings should improve the rearing conditions for pigs and domestic fowls; 65.8% of the respondents totally or partly agreed on establishing laws to improve animal welfare; more than half of the respondents were willing, or to some extent willing, to pay more for high-welfare animal products, whereas 45.5% of the respondents were not willing or reluctant to pay more. In summary, farm animal welfare is still in its early stage of development and more efforts are needed to improve the public conception to animal welfare in the process of establishing farm animal welfare standards and legislations in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaolin You & Yibo Li & Min Zhang & Huoqi Yan & Ruqian Zhao, 2014. "A Survey of Chinese Citizens’ Perceptions on Farm Animal Welfare," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(10), pages 1-10, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0109177
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109177
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109177
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109177&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0109177?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jayson Lusk & F. Norwood, 2010. "Direct Versus Indirect Questioning: An Application to the Well-Being of Farm Animals," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 96(3), pages 551-565, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yanqi Sun & Pui San Ip & Michael Jones & Jenny Jing Wang & Yi An, 2021. "Determinants of Animal Welfare Disclosure Practices: Evidence from China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    2. Monika Gebska & Barbara Golebiewska & Carmen Hubbard, 2019. "Polish farmer and consumer preference for product produced within standards respected animal welfare," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 21(3), pages 733-752.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Raffaelli, R. & Menapace, L., 2018. "Indirect questioning as a debiasing mechanism in preference elicitation for sustainable food? First evidence from a Discrete Choice Experiment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277039, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Lai, Yufeng & Minegishi, Kota & Boaitey, Albert K., 2020. "Social Desirability Bias in Farm Animal Welfare Preference Research," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304375, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Caroline Ritter & Adam Shriver & Emilie McConnachie & Jesse Robbins & Marina A G von Keyserlingk & Daniel M Weary, 2019. "Public attitudes toward genetic modification in dairy cattle," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, December.
    4. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    5. Hansson, Helena & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2015. "Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 35-42.
    6. Lairez, Juliette & Lopez-Ridaura, Santiago & Jourdain, Damien & Falconnier, Gatien N. & Lienhard, Pascal & Striffler, Bruno & Syfongxay, Chanthaly & Affholder, François, 2020. "Context matters: Agronomic field monitoring and participatory research to identify criteria of farming system sustainability in South-East Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    7. Ronald B. Larson, 2019. "Promoting demand-based pricing," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 42-51, February.
    8. Probst, Lorenz & Houedjofonon, Elysée & Ayerakwa, Hayford Mensah & Haas, Rainer, 2012. "Will they buy it? The potential for marketing organic vegetables in the food vending sector to strengthen vegetable safety: A choice experiment study in three West African cities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 296-308.
    9. Manit Mishra, 2016. "Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as an Analytical Technique to Assess Measurement Error in Survey Research," Paradigm, , vol. 20(2), pages 97-112, December.
    10. Tiesta Thakur & Terrance Hurley, 2023. "Do farmers need to be paid to grow milkweed for monarchs or will they volunteer if it is easy enough?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 1008-1024, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0109177. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.