000			03153nam a22002417a 4500
003			ZW-GwMSU
005			20221115141036.0
008			221115b |||||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aMSU _cMSU _erda
100			_aVanhonacker, Filiep _eauthor
245			_aCitizens’ Views on Farm Animal Welfare and Related Information Provision: Exploratory Insights from Flanders, Belgium _ccreated by Filiep Vanhonacker, Els Van Poucke, Frank Tuyttens & Wim Verbeke
264			_aBelgium _bSpringer _c2010
336			_2rdacontent _atext _btxt
337			_2rdamedia _aunmediated _bn
338			_2rdacarrier _avolume _bnc
440			_vVolume , number ,
520			_aThe results of two independent empirical studies with Flemish citizens were combined to address the problem of a short fall of information provision about higher welfare products. The research objectives were (1) to improve our understanding of how citizens conceptualize farm animal welfare, (2) to analyze the variety in the claimed personal relevance of animal welfare in the food purchasing decision process, and (3) to find out people’s needs in relation to product information about animal welfare and the extent to which the current information caters to these needs. The first study consisted of a survey conducted in three consecutive years (2000–2002, n = 521) and was complemented with more recent qualitative data from four focus group discussions (2006, n = 29). Citizens’ conceptualization of farm animal welfare matched reasonably well with those in the scientific literature, although it is clearly influenced by a lower level of practical experience and a higher weight of empathy. In general, respondents indicated that animal welfare was an important product attribute, although it was less important than primary product attributes such as quality, health, and safety. Moral issues, rather than a perception of higher quality, were the main influence on preferences for higher welfare products. At present, higher standards of animal welfare are mostly guaranteed within more general quality assurance schemes. Yet people’s decisions to not choose higher welfare products seems to be related to the perceptual disconnection between eating animal food products and the living producing animals. Respondents generally thought better information provision was required and the present level of provision was strongly criticized. In combination, the findings of both studies help inform the discussion about how citizens can be informed about animal welfare and the preferred content, source, and medium of such information. The paper also provides insights into citizens’ semantic interpretation of the concept of animal welfare (what wordings they use) and the range of relevance that animal welfare has for different groups that, in turn is useful in identifying which segments can be targeted. This can contribute to a more effective valorization of animal welfare as a product attribute.
650			_aAnimal welfare
650			_aConceptualization
650			_aInformation
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-010-9235-9
942			_2lcc _cJA
999			_c160459 _d160459