Search

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Schütz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Apart from improving husbandry conditions and animal welfare, there is a clear public demand to increase transparency in agricultural activities. Personal farm tours have shown to be appreciated by citizens but are limited in their impact because of hygiene requirements and accessibility. Virtual farm tours are a promising approach to overcome these limitations but evidence on their perceptions is missing. This study analyzes how a virtual farm tour is perceived by showing participants (n = 17) a 360-degree video of a conventional pig fattening pen on a tablet and via virtual reality (VR) glasses. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to analyze perceptions and level of immersion and to elicit differences between media devices. Participants' perception of the pig fattening pen was rather poor and depended on the recording perspective as well as on the media device. However, housing conditions were perceived more positively compared to the image participants had in mind prior to the study, and thus the stable was considered as a rather positive example. Participants described virtual farm tours as suitable tool to improve transparency and information transfer and to gain insights into husbandry conditions. They appreciated the comfortable and entertaining character of both media devices and named various possibilities for implementation. However, VR glasses were favored regarding the higher realistic and entertaining value, while the tablet was considered beneficial in terms of usability. The presentation of video sequences without additional explanations about the farm or the housing conditions were claimed insufficient to give an adequate understanding of the seen content., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.