IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0201363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An exploration of industry expert perception of Canadian equine welfare using a modified Delphi technique

Author

Listed:
  • Cordelie DuBois
  • Helen Hambly Odame
  • Derek B Haley
  • Katrina Merkies

Abstract

The diversity of sectors that comprise the equine industry makes reaching a consensus regarding welfare issues a challenge. To allow for productive discussion, equine professionals (n = 34) chosen to represent the diverse specializations from across Canada were surveyed using the Delphi technique—a survey technique employing multiple, iterative “rounds” to consolidate viewpoints—to gather and consolidate information regarding areas of welfare concern in the Canadian equine industry. Only participants who completed the prior round could participate in subsequent rounds. In the first round, respondents were asked to identify examples of welfare issues. Qualitative analysis was used to sort and group answers based on their similarities. Participants identified 12 welfare issues best addressed at the individual horse level, and an additional 12 welfare issues best addressed at the industry level. In the second (n = 24) and third (n = 14) rounds, welfare issues, solutions, and potential motives were consolidated based on order ranking. Themes of “ignorance” and “lack of knowledge” identified throughout all three rounds were cited as both potential risks to welfare as well as motives leading to poor welfare situations. Responses in this study suggest that in order to improve the welfare of equids in the Canadian industry, equine professionals propose that a greater effort is required to help educate industry members and stakeholders such that, through daily routine care and management, higher standards of welfare can be attained.

Suggested Citation

  • Cordelie DuBois & Helen Hambly Odame & Derek B Haley & Katrina Merkies, 2018. "An exploration of industry expert perception of Canadian equine welfare using a modified Delphi technique," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0201363
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201363
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201363&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0201363?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. Susan V Horseman & Henry Buller & Siobhan Mullan & Helen R Whay, 2016. "Current Welfare Problems Facing Horses in Great Britain as Identified by Equine Stakeholders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Sebastian Hess, 2011. "A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(1), pages 55-78, March.
    3. Aven, T. & Steen, R., 2010. "The concept of ignorance in a risk assessment and risk management context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1117-1122.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Pirsich, Wiebke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2017. "The Pet Food Industry: An Innovative Distribution Channel for Animal Welfare Meat?," 2018 International European Forum (163rd EAAE Seminar), February 5-9, 2018, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 276914, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    3. Johanna Lena Dahlhausen & Cam Rungie & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "Value of labeling credence attributes—common structures and individual preferences," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(6), pages 741-751, November.
    4. Franco, Bruna Maria Remonato & Souza, Ana Paula Oliveira & Molento, Carla Forte Maiolino, 2018. "Welfare-friendly Products: availability, labeling and opinion of retailers in Curitiba, Southern Brazil1," Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural (RESR), Sociedade Brasileira de Economia e Sociologia Rural, vol. 56(01), January.
    5. Miriam Baumgartner & Sandra Kuhnke & Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen & Michael H. Erhard & Margit H. Zeitler-Feicht, 2021. "Improving Horse Welfare and Environmental Sustainability in Horse Husbandry: Linkage between Turnout and Nitrogen Surplus," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    7. Niemi, Jarkko K. & Sinisalo, Alina & Valros, Anna & Heinonen, Mari, 2012. "Market and policy-oriented incentives to provide animal welfare: The case of tail biting," 126th Seminar, June 27-29, 2012, Capri, Italy 125957, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Morales, L. Emilio & Griffith, Garry & Fleming, Euan & Mounter, Stuart & Wright, Victor & Umberger, Wendy, 2020. "Preferences for Certified Beef with Animal Welfare and Other Credence Attributes in Australia," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 11(03), September.
    9. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    10. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio, 2013. "Uncertainty Analysis in Fault Tree Models with Dependent Basic Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(6), pages 1146-1173, June.
    11. Klink, Jeanette & Nina, Langen, 2015. "Are animal welfare aspects of relevance in consumers’ purchase decision," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206246, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    12. Van Loo, Ellen J. & Caputo, Vincenzina & Nayga, Rodolfo M. & Verbeke, Wim, 2014. "Consumers’ valuation of sustainability labels on meat," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 137-150.
    13. Sidali, Katia Laura & Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Hofer, Marie, . "Consumer Expectations Regarding Sustainable Food: Insights from Developed and Emerging Markets," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1-30.
    14. Hartmann, Monika & Simons, Johannes, 2015. "The Farm Animal Welfare - Dilemma: Can concerted Action of the Value Chain be a solution?," 148th Seminar, November 30-December 1, 2015, The Hague, The Netherlands 229280, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Ali Eldesouky & Francisco J. Mesias & Miguel Escribano, 2020. "Consumer Assessment of Sustainability Traits in Meat Production. A Choice Experiment Study in Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    16. Meyer-Höfer, Marie von & Spiller, Achim, 2015. ""Sustainability" a semi-globalisable concept for international food marketing: Consumer expectations regarding sustainable food," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202747, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Espinosa, Romain & Treich, Nicolas, 2024. "Animal welfare as a public good," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    18. Kent D. Messer & Marco Costanigro & Harry M. Kaiser, 2017. "Labeling Food Processes: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 407-427.
    19. Francesca Gerini & Frode Alfnes & Alexander Schjøll, 2016. "Organic- and Animal Welfare-labelled Eggs: Competing for the Same Consumers?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 471-490, June.
    20. Romain Espinosa, 2024. "Animals and social welfare," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 62(3), pages 465-504, May.

    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:pone00:0201363. 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.