IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v9y2019i6p132-d242233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Addressing Animal Welfare through Collaborative Stakeholder Networks

Author

Listed:
  • Jill Fernandes

    (The Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia)

  • Dominique Blache

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia)

  • Shane K. Maloney

    (School of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia)

  • Graeme B. Martin

    (School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009, Australia)

  • Bronwyn Venus

    (The Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia)

  • Frederick Rohan Walker

    (School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308, Australia)

  • Brian Head

    (School of Political Science and International Studies, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia)

  • Alan Tilbrook

    (The Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia)

Abstract

In this review, we discuss animal welfare as a complex and contested issue facing society and outline why collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches are critical for effective policy development. Using the lens of “wicked problems” and drawing upon governance literature on policy networks, we identify important factors for working with the inherent complexity of animal welfare through the inclusion of various stakeholder perspectives. We present two case studies that illustrate policy network approaches to animal welfare and highlight the value of fostering collaboration among various stakeholder groups from the industry, community, research, and government sectors. We suggest that the influence of stakeholder networks will likely increase in coming years as newer forms of participatory governance become common. By understanding how collaborative stakeholder networks establish participatory governance, productive communication, and collective priorities, leaders in the field of animal welfare can more productively engage with stakeholders and achieve long-lasting improvements in animal welfare.

Suggested Citation

  • Jill Fernandes & Dominique Blache & Shane K. Maloney & Graeme B. Martin & Bronwyn Venus & Frederick Rohan Walker & Brian Head & Alan Tilbrook, 2019. "Addressing Animal Welfare through Collaborative Stakeholder Networks," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:9:y:2019:i:6:p:132-:d:242233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/6/132/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/6/132/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian Head, 2008. "Assessing network-based collaborations," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 733-749.
    2. Clark, Beth & Stewart, Gavin B. & Panzone, Luca A. & Kyriazakis, Ilias & Frewer, Lynn J., 2017. "Citizens, consumers and farm animal welfare: A meta-analysis of willingness-to-pay studies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 112-127.
    3. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    4. Fulponi, Linda, 2006. "Private voluntary standards in the food system: The perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Daniel H. Cole, 2015. "Advantages of a polycentric approach to climate change policy," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(2), pages 114-118, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jill N. Fernandes & Paul H. Hemsworth & Grahame J. Coleman & Alan J. Tilbrook, 2021. "Costs and Benefits of Improving Farm Animal Welfare," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, January.
    2. von Gall, Philipp & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie, 2021. "Gremien zur Transformation der landwirtschaftlichen Tierhaltung. Welche Ansätze versprechen Erfolg?," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317067, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    3. Kevan W. Lamm & Lauren Pike & Lauren Griffeth & Jiyea Park & Andrews Idun, 2023. "Critical Issues Facing the Agriculture, Forestry, and Natural Resources Industries in the State of Georgia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, June.
    4. Giancarlo Bozzo & Roberta Barrasso & Davide Ferorelli & Vito Gassi & Roberto Russo & Francesco Emanuele Celentano, 2021. "Animal Welfare Policies and Human Rights in the Context of Slaughter Procedures," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-11, May.
    5. Leon Gwaka & Job Dubihlela, 2020. "The Resilience of Smallholder Livestock Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Risks Imbedded in Rural Livestock Systems," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-11, July.

    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. Sarah Rotz & Evan Fraser, 2015. "Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(3), pages 459-473, September.
    2. Kjersti Nes & Federico Antonioli & Pavel Ciaian, 2024. "Trends in sustainability claims and labels for newly introduced food products across selected European countries," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(2), pages 371-390, April.
    3. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    5. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    7. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. World Bank, 2020. "Sudan Agriculture Value Chain Analysis," World Bank Publications - Reports 34103, The World Bank Group.
    9. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    10. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    11. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    12. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    13. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    14. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Lijiao Hu & Yuqing Zheng & Timothy A. Woods & Yoko Kusunose & Steven Buck, 2023. "The market for private food safety certifications: Conceptual framework, review, and future research directions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 197-220, March.
    16. Gaigné, Carl & Laroche Dupraz, Cathie & Matthews, Alan, 2015. "Thirty years of European research on international trade in food and agricultural products," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 91-130, March.
    17. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    18. Latouche, Karine & Rouviere, Elodie, 2011. "Brokers vs. Retailers: Evidence from the French Imports Industry of Fresh Produce," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114398, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. E. Rouvière & K. Latouche, 2014. "Impact of liability rules on modes of coordination for food safety in supply chains," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 111-130, February.
    20. Tamaki Kitagawa & Kenichi Kashiwagi & Hiroko Isoda, 2020. "Effect of Religious and Cultural Information of Olive Oil on Consumer Behavior: Evidence from Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-17, January.

    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:gam:jagris:v:9:y:2019:i:6:p:132-:d:242233. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.