[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/daredp/1705.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New methods of increasing transparency: Does viewing webcam pictures change peoples' opinions towards modern pig farming?

Author

Listed:
  • Gauly, Sarah
  • Müller, Andreas
  • Spiller, Achim
Abstract
Public interest in livestock farming is increasing, as is general criticism regarding the welfare of farm animals. In this context, husbandry systems for pigs especially are perceived very negatively. Despite rising concern for animal farming, most people lack detailed knowledge of modern agricultural production processes, as well as direct contact with agriculture. With regards to public demand for transparency of production quality and animal welfare standards, farmers and farmer associations in several countries have begun installing webcams in dairy, pig and poultry farming operations. Along with informational texts, pictures from webcams are publicly available on the internet and are used as a new type of communication tool aimed at increasing the acceptance of livestock farming by providing farming-specific information. However, there are currently no existing studies quantitatively investigating the effect of webcam pictures from stables and accompanying informational texts on the broader public. In a randomized between-subject experimental design, we presented two webcam pictures from conventional pig barns (pig fattening barn and sow farrowing pen) to the broader public, along with two different informational texts (one written directly by farmers and one neutrally written by the authors). Therefore, the objective of this study is to examine 1) if the attitude towards pig farming changes after having seen the webcam pictures, 2) if different informational texts alter the evaluation of webcam pictures, 3) if there are differences in the perception of webcam pictures of a pig fattening barn and a sow farrowing pen, and 4) how people evaluate the use of webcams as a public relations tool that can be used to provide transparency. It was determined that the majority of respondents display a more negative attitude after viewing the webcam pictures and informational texts, and this is especially true for participants reading the neutrally written texts. Further, the farrowing pen is evaluated substantially more negatively than the pig fattening pen. Regarding the overall evaluation of webcams, people seem to appreciate that farmers show real pictures from their stables, although a rather low interest in the usage of webcams in agriculture can be observed. Thus, although transparency may be enhanced through the use of webcams, our findings suggest that webcams generally do not show the desired effects on the public and are likely to be unable to improve the image of pig farming by simply providing information via pictures and texts. Finally, the application of webcams as a communication tool cannot be recommended, at least not for the husbandry systems investigated within this study.

Suggested Citation

  • Gauly, Sarah & Müller, Andreas & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "New methods of increasing transparency: Does viewing webcam pictures change peoples' opinions towards modern pig farming?," DARE Discussion Papers 1705, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/157811/1/886291917.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Busch, Gesa & Schwetje, Carolin & Spiller, Achim, 2015. "Bewertung der Tiergerechtheit in der intensiven Hähnchenmast durch Bürger anhand von Bildern: ein Survey-Experiment," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(03), September.
    2. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher & Olynk, Nicole, 2009. "Consumer voting and demand behavior regarding swine gestation crates," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 492-498, December.
    3. Jill J. McCluskey & Johan F.M. Swinnen, 2004. "Political Economy of the Media and Consumer Perceptions of Biotechnology," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1230-1237.
    4. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    5. Robbins, J.A. & Franks, B. & Weary, D.M. & von Keyserlingk, M.A.G., 2016. "Awareness of ag-gag laws erodes trust in farmers and increases support for animal welfare regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 121-125.
    6. Appleby, Michael C. & Chinn, Kathy & Douglas, Lawrence & Firkins, Lawrence D. & Fraser, David & Golab, Gail C. & Hayes, Dermot J. & Houpt, Katherine A. & Irwin, Christa & McGlone, John J. & Rhodes, R., 2005. "Housing of Pregnant Sows--A Comprehensive Review," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12655, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Busch, Gesa & Gauly, Sarah Arianna & Spiller, Achim, 2017. "Ich sehe was, was du nicht siehst: Eine Eye Tracking Studie zur Betrachtung und Bewertung von Bildern aus der Schweinemast," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 66(2), June.
    8. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2011. "On mandatory labeling of animal welfare attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 430-437, June.
    9. Wim Verbeke, 2005. "Agriculture and the food industry in the information age," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 347-368, September.
    10. Klaus G. Grunert, 2005. "Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(3), pages 369-391, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stranieri, Stefanella & Banterle, Alessandro, 2015. "Consumer Interest in Meat Labelled Attributes: Who Cares?," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 18(4), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Domenico Carlucci & Biagia De Devitiis & Gianluca Nardone & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo, 2017. "Certification Labels Versus Convenience Formats: What Drives the Market in Aquaculture Products?," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 295-310.
    3. Carlucci, Domenico & Dedevitiis, Biagia & Nardone, Gianluca & Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano, 2016. "Certification Labels Vs Convenience Formats: What drives the market in aquaculture products?," MPRA Paper 75448, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Šárka Velčovská & Giacomo Del Chiappa, 2015. "The Food Quality Labels: Awareness and Willingness to Pay in the Context of the Czech Republic," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 63(2), pages 647-658.
    5. Fabio Boncinelli & Francesca Gerini & Benedetta Neri & Leonardo Casini, 2018. "Consumer willingness to pay for non‐mandatory indication of the fish catch zone," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(4), pages 728-741, October.
    6. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    7. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2013. "Rational inattention or rational overreaction? Consumer reactions to health news," IFRO Working Paper 2013/14, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    8. Karijn Bonne & Wim Verbeke, 2008. "Religious values informing halal meat production and the control and delivery of halal credence quality," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(1), pages 35-47, January.
    9. Yu-Hui Chen & Kai-Han Qiu & Kang Ernest Liu & Chun-Yuan Chiang, 2020. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay a Premium for Pure Rice Noodles? A Study of Discrete Choice Experiments in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Ramona Weinrich & Annabell Franz & Achim Spiller, 2016. "Multi-level labelling: too complex for consumers?," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 18(2), pages 155-172.
    11. Pecchioli, Bruno & Moroz, David, 2023. "Do geographical appellations provide useful quality signals? The case of Scotch single malt whiskies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    12. Donatella Baiardi & Riccardo Puglisi & Simona Scabrosetti, 2012. "Individual Attitudes on Food Quality and Safety: Empirical Evidence on EU Countries," DEM Working Papers Series 014, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    13. Alessandro Banterle & Stefanella Stranieri, 2013. "Sustainability Standards and the Reorganization of Private Label Supply Chains: A Transaction Cost Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(12), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Stranieri, S. & Baldi, L., 2015. "Fresh-cut salad and shelf life date extension: a segmentation of Italian consumers," 2015 International European Forum (144th EAAE Seminar), February 9-13, 2015, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 206215, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    15. Ying (Jessica) Cao & David R. Just & Calum Turvey & Brian Wansink, 2015. "Existing Food Habits and Recent Choices Lead to Disregard of Food Safety Announcements," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 63(4), pages 491-511, December.
    16. Sadílek, Tomáš, 2019. "Bio‐economy, bio‐based, Q methodology, society, perspectives, innovation, sufficiency, living standard, Germany," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 10(02), April.
    17. Caterina Contini & Fabio Boncinelli & Giovanna Piracci & Gabriele Scozzafava & Leonardo Casini, 2023. "Can blockchain technology strengthen consumer preferences for credence attributes?," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.
    18. Martin Browning & Lars Gårn Hansen & Sinne Smed, 2019. "Heterogeneous Consumer Reactions to Health News," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(2), pages 579-599.
    19. Livat, Florine & Alston, Julian M. & Cardebat, Jean-Marie, 2019. "Do denominations of origin provide useful quality signals? The case of Bordeaux wines," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 518-532.
    20. Heise, Heinke & Theuvsen, Ludwig, 2016. "What do consumers think about farm animal welfare in modern agriculture? Attitudes and shopping behaviour," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 20(3), November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    pig farming; webcam; transparency; attitude change; image; communication tool;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:daredp:1705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iagoede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.