IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/srlewp/45998.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Attitudes to the Welfare of Broiler Chickens

Author

Listed:
  • Hall, Clare
  • Sandilands, Victoria

Abstract

This paper reports results from two workshops held in York, England that investigated public attitudes towards the welfare of broiler chickens. At the outset the majority of participants admitted that they knew little about how broiler chickens are reared and were shocked at some of the facts presented to them. Cognitive mapping and aspects of Q methodology were used to reveal the range of variables that participants believed affected chicken welfare, the causal relationships between those variables, and what variables were considered most and least important. While some participants focused on the importance of meeting basic needs such as access to food, water, light and ventilation, others highlighted the role of welfare regulations and public opinion. Factor analysis of the results from a ranking exercise identified two factor groups, “Factor one - The bigger picture” and “Factor two – Basic animal rights”. The findings demonstrate that some members of the public are both interested in learning about how their food is produced and concerned about the conditions faced by broiler chickens. Some are able to see clear links between public opinion and the welfare of farm animals, an important connection if consumer behaviour is to contribute towards improving animal welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Hall, Clare & Sandilands, Victoria, 2006. "Public Attitudes to the Welfare of Broiler Chickens," Working Papers 45998, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:srlewp:45998
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.45998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/45998/files/Work13Hall.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.45998?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. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    2. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    3. Marian Stamp Dawkins & Christl A. Donnelly & Tracey A. Jones, 2004. "Chicken welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking density," Nature, Nature, vol. 427(6972), pages 342-344, January.
    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. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    2. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    3. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    4. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. Katarzyna Gruszka & Annika Scharbert & Michael Soder, 2016. "Changing the world one student at a time? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics Papers ieep7, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    6. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    7. Gruszka, Katarzyna & Scharbert, Annika Regine & Soder, Michael, 2017. "Leaving the mainstream behind? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 485-498.
    8. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    10. Ghoochani Omid M. & Bakhshi Azadeh & Nejad Azar Hashemi & Ghanian Mansour & Cotton Matthew, 2015. "Environmental values in the petrochemical industry: A Q-method study in South West Iran," Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, Sciendo, vol. 3(4), pages 1-10, December.
    11. Eefje Cuppen & Suzanne Brunsting & Udo Pesch & Ynke Feenstra, 2015. "How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(9), pages 1963-1978, September.
    12. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    13. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    14. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    15. Ágnes Nemcsicsné Zsóka, 2007. "The role of organisational culture in the environmental awareness of companies," Journal of East European Management Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 12(2), pages 109-131.
    16. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    17. Latvala, Terhi & Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Phillipa & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2013. "Identifying Expectations for Innovations in Management Practices in Dairy Sector by Using Q Methodology," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164734, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    18. Muhammad Asif, 2020. "Role of Energy Conservation and Management in the 4D Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-3, November.
    19. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    20. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.

    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:ags:srlewp:45998. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lesacuk.html .

    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.