IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v34y2017i2d10.1007_s10460-016-9721-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment

Author

Listed:
  • Tamara J. Bergstra

    (Wageningen University)

  • Henk Hogeveen

    (Wageningen University)

  • Elsbeth N. Stassen

    (Wageningen University)

Abstract

The pig sector is struggling with negative attitudes of citizens. This may be the result of conflicting attitudes toward pig husbandry between citizens and other stakeholders. To obtain knowledge about these attitudes, the objectives of this study were (1) to determine and compare attitudes of various stakeholders toward animals, humans and the environment in the context of pig husbandry and (2) to determine and compare the acceptability of publically discussed issues related to pig husbandry of various stakeholders. A questionnaire was distributed to citizens, conventional pig farmers, organic pig farmers, pig husbandry advisors and pig veterinarians. Respondents could indicate their attitude toward aspects related to animals, humans and the environment in the context of pig husbandry and they could indicate their opinion about the acceptability of issues of pig husbandry, e.g. piglet mortality and inside pig housing. Based on measured attitudes and the acceptability of issues, the studied stakeholders could be divided into three distinctive groups. The group of citizens and organic pig farmers showed negative attitudes toward all aspects of pig husbandry, the group of conventional pig farmers and pig husbandry advisors only showed negative attitudes toward aspects related to economics and the group of pig veterinarians showed negative attitudes to specific aspects of pig husbandry. This indicates that stakeholders have different interests and different perspectives with regard to pig husbandry. The pig sector should learn to understand citizens’ perspectives and take these into account in their line of work, the implementation of animal welfare measures and in their communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Tamara J. Bergstra & Henk Hogeveen & Elsbeth N. Stassen, 2017. "Attitudes of different stakeholders toward pig husbandry: a study to determine conflicting and matching attitudes toward animals, humans and the environment," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 393-405, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:34:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-016-9721-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-016-9721-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-016-9721-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-016-9721-4?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Inken Christoph-Schulz & Anja-Karolina Rovers, 2020. "German Citizens’ Perception of Fattening Pig Husbandry—Evidence from a Mixed Methods Approach," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Jacqueline S. Welles & Noelle Cielito T. Soriano & Freda Elikem Dorbu & G. M. Pereira & Laura M. Rubeck & Erica L. Timmermans & Benjamin Ndayambaje & Alison V. Deviney & John J. Classen & Jacek A. Koz, 2021. "Socio-Economic and Governance Conditions Corresponding to Change in Animal Agriculture: South Dakota Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-19, September.
    3. GRoss, Sabine & Roosen, Jutta, 2021. "Effects of information on social trust in farmers regarding animal welfare," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(1).

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:34:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s10460-016-9721-4. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.