Consumers' perceptions of animal husbandry practices and their heterogeneous needs for information - insights from a cross-country cluster analysis

被引:2
作者
Hempel, Corinna [1 ]
Waldrop, Megan [1 ]
Roosen, Jutta [1 ]
机构
[1] TUM Sch Management, Chair Mkt & Consumer Res, Alte Akad 16, D-85354 Freising Weihenstephan, Germany
来源
INTERNATIONAL FOOD AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT REVIEW | 2023年 / 26卷 / 05期
关键词
animal welfare; cross-country survey; consumer segmentation; information; knowledge; WELFARE; FOOD; METAANALYSIS; CITIZENS; SYSTEMS; LABELS; LINKS;
D O I
10.22434/IFAMR2022.0139
中图分类号
F3 [农业经济];
学科分类号
0202 ; 020205 ; 1203 ;
摘要
The growing complexity of value chains leads to an increasing distance between consumers and producers. In anonymized markets, product labels are used to decrease the information asymmetry between producers and consumers, as they replace any form of direct communication. In the context of animal husbandry, we reveal how the distance between consumers and producers is related to consumers' perceptions of animal welfare and elaborate on the role of knowledge, information, and product labels. A quantitative online survey on consumers' perceptions of and attitudes towards animal welfare (AW) was carried out in Austria, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Sweden. Data was analyzed using principal component and cluster analysis, yielding four consumer segments, namely the pragmatists, the AW unconcerned, the indifferent, and the AW concerned. The results indicate that the more contact consumers have with producers/farmers, the higher is consumers' subjective knowledge of animal husbandry systems and the lower is the need for additional information on animal welfare through a label. Further research is needed to investigate the relation between subjective and objective knowledge, animal welfare concern, and consumers' alienation from food production places and practices.
引用
收藏
页码:821 / 836
页数:16
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] Consumers' Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare
    Alonso, Marta E.
    Gonzalez-Montana, Jose R.
    Lomillos, Juan M.
    [J]. ANIMALS, 2020, 10 (03):
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2005, Welfare Quality Reports
  • [3] Austin E J., 2005, Journal of Individual Differences, V26, P107, DOI [DOI 10.1027/1614-0001.26.3.107, 10.1027/1614-0001.26.3.107]
  • [4] After Snowden: Rethinking the Impact of Surveillance
    Bauman, Zygmunt
    Bigo, Didier
    Esteves, Paulo
    Guild, Elspeth
    Jabri, Vivienne
    Lyon, David
    Walker, R. B. J.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY, 2014, 8 (02) : 121 - 144
  • [5] Who are farm animal welfare conscious consumers?
    Boaitey, Albert
    Minegishi, Kota
    [J]. BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL, 2020, 122 (12): : 3779 - 3796
  • [6] Commodifying animal welfare
    Buller, H.
    Roe, E.
    [J]. ANIMAL WELFARE, 2012, 21 : 131 - 135
  • [7] Modifying and commodifying farm animal welfare: The economisation of layer chickens
    Buller, Henry
    Roe, Emma
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES, 2014, 33 : 141 - 149
  • [9] Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies
    Clark, Beth
    Stewart, Gavin B.
    Panzone, Luca A.
    Kyriazakis, Ilias
    Frewer, Lynn J.
    [J]. FOOD POLICY, 2017, 68 : 112 - 127
  • [10] A Systematic Review of Public Attitudes, Perceptions and Behaviours Towards Production Diseases Associated with Farm Animal Welfare
    Clark, Beth
    Stewart, Gavin B.
    Panzone, Luca A.
    Kyriazakis, I.
    Frewer, Lynn J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS, 2016, 29 (03) : 455 - 478