The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Attitudes and Beliefs of Eastern European Consumers Towards Animal Welfare
Abstract
The aim of this exploratory work, because of the existing bias on the size of the sample and some of the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, was to investigate the Eastern European consumers’ beliefs and attitudes toward animal welfare, to perform a cross-country segmentation analysis and to observe possible differences with their Western European counterparts. For this purpose, a survey was conducted with 5508 consumers from 13 Eastern European countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, North Macedonia, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine) using a questionnaire with nine statements about consumers beliefs regarding animal welfare (aspects of management, ethical issues about animals, and consequences of animal welfare on meat quality and price), one statement about the willingness to pay more for meat produced under better welfare conditions, and four statements regarding attitudes toward animal welfare. Differences between countries were detected for all the statements. Moreover, three clusters of consumers were identified: one with consumers indifferent towards animal welfare; one with consumers concerned about animal welfare, but they believe it is difficult to achieve; and one with consumers concerned about animal welfare, and they believe it is possible to achieve it.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Finally, most people care about pet welfare, but for various reasons, there is still less concern regarding farm animals’ (e.g., pigs, cows and chickens) welfare [49,50].”
From The Complexity of the Human–Animal Bond: Empathy, Attachment and Anthropomorphism in Human–Animal Relationships and Animal Hoarding (2022) · cites this paper as [50]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Koknaroglu, 2013, Animal welfare: An animal science approach, Meat Sci., 95, 821, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.030 · DOI
- Grunert, 2018, Consumer interest in environmental impact, safety, health and animal welfare aspects of modern pig production: Results of a cross-national choice experiment, Meat Sci., 137, 123, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.11.022 · DOI
- Mckendree, 2014, Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare, J. Anim. Sci., 92, 3161, 10.2527/jas.2014-6874 · DOI
- Thorslund, 2016, A good taste in the meat, a good taste in the mouth—Animal welfare as an aspect of pork quality in three European countries, Livest. Sci., 193, 58, 10.1016/j.livsci.2016.09.007 · DOI
- O’Mahony, M. (1986). Sensory Evaluation of Food: Statistical Methods and Procedures, Routledge.
- Tomasevic, 2020, Attitudes and beliefs of Eastern European consumers towards piglet castration and meat from castrated pigs, Meat Sci., 160, 107965, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107965 · DOI
- Clark, 2016, A Systematic Review of Public Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviours Towards Production Diseases Associated with Farm Animal Welfare, J. Agric. Environ. Ethic, 29, 455, 10.1007/s10806-016-9615-x · DOI
- Frewer, 2005, Consumer Attitudes Towards the Development of Animal-Friendly Husbandry Systems, J. Agric. Environ. Ethic, 18, 345, 10.1007/s10806-005-1489-2 · DOI
- Fraser, 2008, Toward a global perspective on farm animal welfare, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 113, 330, 10.1016/j.applanim.2008.01.011 · DOI
- Spooner, 2014, Attitudes of Canadian citizens toward farm animal welfare: A qualitative study, Livest. Sci., 163, 150, 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.02.011 · DOI
- Bennett, 2003, Estimating the benefits of farm animal welfare legislation using the contingent valuation method, Agric. Econ., 29, 85, 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2003.tb00149.x · DOI
- Vimiso, 2012, Preliminary study on consumers’ and meat traders’ perceptions of beef quality and how the beef quality is affected by animal welfare practices, Sci. Res. Essays, 7, 2037, 10.5897/SRE12.071 · DOI
- Lagerkvist, 2006, Immunocastration of male pigs by immunization against gonadotrophin-releasing hormone as an alternative to surgical castration or no castration: A choice experiment with Swedish consumers, AgBioForum, 9, 51
- Clark, 2017, Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies, Food Policy, 68, 112, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.006 · DOI
- Sepulveda, 2017, Mexican consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards farm animal welfare and willingness to pay for welfare friendly meat products, Meat Sci., 125, 106, 10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.12.001 · DOI
- Napolitano, 2010, Consumer liking and willingness to pay for high welfare animal-based products, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 21, 537, 10.1016/j.tifs.2010.07.012 · DOI
- Coleman, 2018, Public attitudes predict community behaviours relevant to the pork industry, Anim. Prod. Sci., 58, 416, 10.1071/AN16776 · DOI
- Lai, 2018, Factoring Chinese consumers’ risk perceptions into their willingness to pay for pork safety, environmental stewardship, and animal welfare, Food Control, 85, 423, 10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.09.032 · DOI
- Krystallis, 2012, Consumer attitudes towards sustainability aspects of food production: Insights from three continents, J. Mark. Manag., 28, 334, 10.1080/0267257X.2012.658836 · DOI
- Vanhonacker, 2009, Belgian consumers’ attitude towards surgical castration and immuno-castration of piglets, Anim. Welf., 18, 371, 10.1017/S0962728600000774 · DOI
- Spring, 2008, Attitudes of Swiss consumers towards meat from entire or immunocastrated boars: A representative survey, Res. Vet. Sci., 85, 625, 10.1016/j.rvsc.2008.03.002 · DOI
- Miele, M., and Evans, A. (2005, January 17–18). European consumers’ views about farm animal welfare. Proceedings of the Welfare Quality Conference, Brussels, Belgium.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
de Araújo, P. D., Araújo, W. M. C., Patarata, L., & Fraqueza, M. J. (2022) · Meat Science · doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108952 · Cited by 186
Prato-Previde, E., Basso Ricci, E., & Colombo, E. S. (2022) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani12202835 · Cited by 121
Metadata
- Authors
- Tomasevic, I., Bahelka, I., Čítek, J., Čandek-Potokar, M., Djekić, I., Getya, A., Guerrero, L., Ivanova, S., Kušec, G., Nakov, D., Sołowiej, B., Stoica, M., Szabó, C., Tudoreanu, L., Weiler, U., & Font-i-Furnols, M.
- Affiliations
- Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia
- Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Prague, Czech Republic
- Research Institute for Animal Production, Hlohovecka 2, 951 41 Luzianky, Slovakia
- Agricultural Institute of Slovenia, Hacquetova ul. 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
- National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Heroiv Oborony str., 12, 03041 Kyiv, Ukraine
- IRTA-Food Industries, Granja Camps i Armet, E-17121 Monells, Spain
- Agricultural Academy, 30 Suhodolska str., 1373 Sofia, Bulgaria
- Faculty of Agrobiotechnical Sciences Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Vladimira Preloga 1, 31 000 Osijek, Croatia
- Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Food, University Ss.Cyril and Methodius in Skopje, blvd. Aleksandar Makedonski bb, 1000 Skopje, North Macedonia
- Faculty of Food Sciences and Biotechnology, University of Life Sciences in Lublin, Skromna 8, 20-704 Lublin, Poland
- Cross-Border Faculty, Dunarea de Jos University, 47 Domneasca str., 800008 Galati, Romania
- Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences and Environmental Management, University of Debrecen, Boszormenyi ut 138., 4032 Debrecen, Hungary
- University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Bd Marasti 59, 011464 Bucuresti, Romania
- Universitaet Hohenheim, 460 f Garben str. 17/208, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
- ORCID
- Venue
- Animals
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2020-07-17
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1220
- ISSN
- 2076-2615
- PMC
- PMC7401545
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
