Systematically analysing the acceptability of pig farming systems with different animal welfare levels when considering intra-sustainability trade-offs: Are citizens willing to compromise?

Abstract

In recent years, intensive pig husbandry has been subject to increasing public criticism, including a clear demand for more animal-friendly housing systems in many countries. However, such systems are associated with trade-offs at the expense of other sustainability domains, which challenges implementation and makes prioritization necessary. Overall, research is scarce that systematically analyses citizens’ evaluation of different pig housing systems and associated trade-offs. Given the ongoing transformation process of future livestock systems that meet social demands, it is crucial to include public attitudes. We therefore assessed how citizens evaluate different pig housing systems and whether they are willing to compromise animal welfare in trade-off situations. We conducted an online survey with 1,038 German citizens using quota and split sampling in a picture-based survey design. Participants were asked to evaluate several housing systems with different animal welfare levels and associated trade-offs based on an either positive (‘free-range’ in split 1) or negative (‘indoor housing with fully slatted floors’ in split 2) reference system. Initial acceptability was highest for the ‘free-range’ system, followed by ‘indoor housing with straw bedding and outdoor access’, ‘indoor housing with straw bedding’, and ‘indoor housing with fully slatted floors’, with only the latter being clearly not acceptable for many. Overall acceptability was higher with a positive rather than a negative reference system. When confronted with several trade-off situations, participants became uncertain and temporarily adjusted their evaluations. Thereby participants were most likely to trade off housing conditions against animal or human health rather than against climate protection or a lower product price. Nevertheless, a final evaluation demonstrated that participants did not fundamentally change their initial attitudes. Our findings provide evidence that citizens’ desire for good housing conditions is relatively stable, but they are willing to compromise at the expense of animal welfare up to a moderate level.

Assessing citizens’ views on the importance of animal welfare and other sustainability aspects in livestock farming using best–worst scaling

“…As the simultaneous consideration of these aspects gives rise to numerous trade-offs, especially regarding animal welfare, we chose the best-worst scaling approach (BWS) to measure citizens' preferences. We consider our results to make a valuable contribution to the field, as previous research differs from our study in several respects: the selection of the aspects investigated, the context in which aspects were evaluated, the methods used to measure importance levels, and the animal species considered (Lusk et al, 2007;Vanhonacker et al, 2007;Sackett et al, 2013;Spooner et al, 2014;Tuyttens et al, 2014;Caracciolo et al, 2016;Cummins et al, 2016;Vanhonacker et al, 2016;Ventura et al, 2016;Verain et al, 2016;Ellison et al, 2017;Grunert et al, 2018;Heise and Theuvsen, 2018;Sonntag et al, 2019a;Faucitano et al, 2022;Schmiess and Lusk, 2022;Schütz et al, 2023). A comparison of the importance levels of the aspects we investigated with previous studies is therefore only possible to a limited extent, which should be kept in mind in the following discussion of the results.…”

“…Taking farrowing crates for sows and outdoor access for pigs as an example, Sonntag et al (2019a) found that in a trade-off situation, the animal welfare argument (i.e., improved housing conditions) was more convincing than, e.g., economic, technological, or hygienic arguments. In addition, in a recent study by Schütz et al (2023) where different pig housing systems had to be evaluated against the background of emerging trade-offs, citizens were more likely to trade off animal welfare (i.e., housing conditions) against animal or human health than against climate protection or a lower product price.…”

“…When in doubt, citizens opted for improved animal welfare (Meuwissen and Van Der Lans, 2005;Ryan et al, 2015). This is also reflected by the findings of a recently published study where animal welfare was ranked above other sustainability aspects or price in a trade-off situation involving different pig housing systems (Schütz et al, 2023).…”

“…Current prevailing livestock production systems are in serious need of improvement from both an animal science and a societal perspective, and thus have been the focus of public criticism for years (Clark et al, 2016;Dawkins, 2016;Mkwanazi et al, 2019;Alonso et al, 2020). Several international studies demonstrate the public desire for more natural and species-appropriate housing systems that provide better farm animal welfare (Boogaard et al, 2011;Spooner et al, 2014;Clark et al, 2016;Bergstra et al, 2017;Sonntag et al, 2019b;Alonso et al, 2020;Schütz et al, 2023). There is evidence that citizens' concerns about the welfare of farm animals is not a short-term effect but a growing megatrend (European Commission, 2007;European Commission, 2016;Fernandes et al, 2021).…”

Willingness to pay for a multi-level animal husbandry label: an analysis of German meat consumers

“…Accordingly, studies show that mainly indoor housing systems are criticized due to, e.g. limited space and missing outdoor access (Clark et al, 2016;Weible et al, 2016;K€ uhl et al, 2019;Sch€ utz et al, 2023a). Especially in pig and poultry fattening, however, systems with outdoor access are rather scarce in most countries.…”