Perception and Awareness of Animal Welfare Among Residents of Malta.

IF 2.7 2区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE
Animals Pub Date : 2025-06-02 DOI:10.3390/ani15111634
Pantaleo Gemma, Eleonora Nannoni, Barbara Padalino, Angelo Peli, Francesco Luca Alexander, Giovanni Buonaiuto, Luca Sardi, Giovanna Martelli
{"title":"Perception and Awareness of Animal Welfare Among Residents of Malta.","authors":"Pantaleo Gemma, Eleonora Nannoni, Barbara Padalino, Angelo Peli, Francesco Luca Alexander, Giovanni Buonaiuto, Luca Sardi, Giovanna Martelli","doi":"10.3390/ani15111634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A representative sample of Maltese citizens (N = 384) was surveyed about their perception and attitude towards animal welfare and animal-friendly foods. Knowledge about animal welfare was self-evaluated as moderate (36%) or good (27%), and mass media (television, web and newspapers) were the primary information source (73%). Dairy cows were perceived as having the highest welfare (average rating 3 on a 1-to-5 scale), while conditions for broilers and pigs were perceived as more critical (average rating 2.7). Respondents consider animal welfare important (64%), the availability of welfare-friendly products in Malta limited (49%), and would support a national animal-friendly label (84%). Although 49% were willing to pay more for animal-friendly products, the accepted price increase was limited (increase below 10% for 37% of respondents, 20% were not willing to pay more and 27% were price-sensitive). Chi-squared analysis showed that the respondents' profession impacted the support towards an animal welfare label (<i>p</i> < 0.01), with business operators being the least interested. Urban respondents were more critical toward farm animal welfare and more supportive of establishing a national welfare label than rural respondents (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The latter were less convinced that their choices can influence the welfare of farm animals (<i>p</i> < 0.01). Women were more willing to pay for welfare improvements than men (<i>p</i> < 0.01). These findings emphasize a significant concern for animal welfare among respondents, coupled with a moderate willingness to pay. The strong support for a national animal welfare label warrants the question as to whether transparent labelling would allow consumers to translate their sensibility into ethical purchasing behaviour.</p>","PeriodicalId":7955,"journal":{"name":"Animals","volume":"15 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153805/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animals","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ani15111634","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A representative sample of Maltese citizens (N = 384) was surveyed about their perception and attitude towards animal welfare and animal-friendly foods. Knowledge about animal welfare was self-evaluated as moderate (36%) or good (27%), and mass media (television, web and newspapers) were the primary information source (73%). Dairy cows were perceived as having the highest welfare (average rating 3 on a 1-to-5 scale), while conditions for broilers and pigs were perceived as more critical (average rating 2.7). Respondents consider animal welfare important (64%), the availability of welfare-friendly products in Malta limited (49%), and would support a national animal-friendly label (84%). Although 49% were willing to pay more for animal-friendly products, the accepted price increase was limited (increase below 10% for 37% of respondents, 20% were not willing to pay more and 27% were price-sensitive). Chi-squared analysis showed that the respondents' profession impacted the support towards an animal welfare label (p < 0.01), with business operators being the least interested. Urban respondents were more critical toward farm animal welfare and more supportive of establishing a national welfare label than rural respondents (p < 0.05). The latter were less convinced that their choices can influence the welfare of farm animals (p < 0.01). Women were more willing to pay for welfare improvements than men (p < 0.01). These findings emphasize a significant concern for animal welfare among respondents, coupled with a moderate willingness to pay. The strong support for a national animal welfare label warrants the question as to whether transparent labelling would allow consumers to translate their sensibility into ethical purchasing behaviour.

马耳他居民对动物福利的认知和意识。
对马耳他公民的代表性样本(N = 384)进行了关于他们对动物福利和动物友好食品的看法和态度的调查。有关动物福利的知识被自我评价为一般(36%)或良好(27%),大众媒体(电视、网络和报纸)是主要的信息来源(73%)。奶牛被认为拥有最高的福利(在1到5的评分中平均评分为3),而肉鸡和猪的状况被认为更糟糕(平均评分为2.7)。受访者认为动物福利很重要(64%),马耳他福利友好型产品的供应有限(49%),并支持国家动物友好标签(84%)。尽管49%的人愿意为动物友好型产品支付更高的价格,但可接受的价格上涨是有限的(37%的受访者涨幅低于10%,20%的人不愿意支付更高的价格,27%的人对价格敏感)。卡方分析显示,受访者的职业影响了对动物福利标签的支持(p < 0.01),而经营者对动物福利标签的支持程度最低。城市受访者对农场动物福利的批评程度高于农村受访者,对建立国家福利标签的支持程度高于农村受访者(p < 0.05)。后者不太相信他们的选择会影响农场动物的福利(p < 0.01)。女性比男性更愿意为福利改善买单(p < 0.01)。这些发现强调了受访者对动物福利的高度关注,以及适度的支付意愿。对国家动物福利标签的强烈支持使人们不禁要问,透明的标签是否能让消费者将自己的感性转化为合乎道德的购买行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Animals
Animals Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Animal Science and Zoology
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
3015
审稿时长
20.52 days
期刊介绍: Animals (ISSN 2076-2615) is an international and interdisciplinary scholarly open access journal. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications, and short notes that are relevant to any field of study that involves animals, including zoology, ethnozoology, animal science, animal ethics and animal welfare. However, preference will be given to those articles that provide an understanding of animals within a larger context (i.e., the animals'' interactions with the outside world, including humans). There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental details and/or method of study, must be provided for research articles. Articles submitted that involve subjecting animals to unnecessary pain or suffering will not be accepted, and all articles must be submitted with the necessary ethical approval (please refer to the Ethical Guidelines for more information).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信