The presence of intensive livestock farms in close vicinity to residential areas in the Netherlands is a complex problem characterised by knowledge uncertainty about the effects on residential health, overlapping value-driven concerns and stakeholder diversity. In order to address concerns about the health effects and effectively manage the debate about intensive livestock farming, constructive stakeholder dialogues are encouraged, informed by current scientific insights. We explored the current knowledge, beliefs and concerns of scientific experts, following the mental models approach. A summary expert model was derived from scanning the relevant literature and informed by interviews with 20 scientific experts. The study shows imprecise use of terminology by experts. Moreover, they appear to perceive intensive livestock farming not as a major health problem at least at this moment for neighbouring residents in the Netherlands. Broader themes such as (environmental) unsustainability and biodiversity loss seem a more prominent concern among the experts. Our study questions whether dialogues should only focus on residential health or cover broader values and concerns. However, mental models about risk may differ with other stakeholders, impeding communication. Hence, we will identify other stakeholders’ knowledge, beliefs and value-based concerns in the light of facilitating constructed dialogues between stakeholders.

No abstract

In the Netherlands, intensive livestock farming is a recurrent topic of societal debate with stakeholders having quite different perspectives on the benefits and harms. In particular, stakeholders appear to have different perceptions on the risks to human and animal health. This paper reports a quantitative analysis of a survey on the perceptions of risks and benefits of intensive livestock farming conducted among the general public, including people living in livestock dense municipalities ( n = 808), farmers ( n = 237) and other stakeholders ( n = 367). Results show that farmers and citizens have contrasting views about the benefits and concerns and in particular about the risks of intensive livestock farming for human health as well as animal well-being. People living in livestock dense communities held a somewhat more positive view than the general public, yet odour hinder and air quality was perceived as a serious health problem, but not by farmers. These differences in risk perceptions may well be explained from differences in interest, experience and options for control of potential hazards. Our study reflects more than just the perceived risks related to intensive livestock farming, but also reveal the global and multidimensional legitimate concerns and views on what matter to different groups of people. We argue that these differences in risk perspectives should be taken into account when communicating about human health risks, and should also be more explicitly addressed in discussions about the risks of intensive livestock farming in order to develop more inclusive policies that are supported by stakeholders.